ArticleInternational journal of medical education2025
Consensus development and validation of entrustable professional activities for nephrology fellowship training in Saudi.
Article in International journal of medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to develop and validate entrustable professional activities (EPAs) for the nephrology fellowship program in Saudi Arabia. Methods: This study utilized a two-round modified Delphi design involving nephrology consultants across Saudi Arabia. The initial list of 39 EPAs was created through a literature review and expert input, followed by a piloting process that refined these activities based on feedback. A target sample of 26 nephrology consultants was invited, achieving an 80% response rate in the first round with 21 participants. Descriptive statistics, including means and percentages, summarized demographic characteristics and group responses. Participants rated the relevance of each EPA using a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as at least 75% agreement among participants, which guided the refinement of EPAs across the Delphi rounds. The study was approved by the institutional review board at Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia. Results: In the first round, consensus was achieved for 34 EPAs, while 5 were excluded for lack of relevance and 6 were modified. The second round confirmed full consensus on the revised 34 EPAs, with an 81% response rate among the 21 experts. Conclusions: This study successfully developed and validated EPAs for the nephrology fellowship program in Saudi Arabia. Implementing these EPAs is expected to enhance training, assessment, and clinical competence for nephrology fellows. Future studies should explore the long-term impact of these EPAs on training outcomes and consider adapting them for other specialties.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.