ArticleBMC medical education2025
Medical education program restructuring according to the PUIGEP (prevalence, urgency, possible intervention, gravity, exemplarity, prevention) system.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe evolution of the academic curriculum in medical school presents opportunities and challenges. The Bologna process has divided medical training into 3 cycles (License, Master, Doctorate), with each cycle assigned a number of credits. The aim of this work is to distribute the 120 credits of the curriculum equitably between its various modules, using an objective method that takes into account students' workload and study time. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe curriculum credit allocation process involved an assessment of chapter relevance using a PUIGEP-MG (Prevalence, Urgency, possible Intervention, Gravity, Exemplarity, Prevention) questionnaire, as well as an assessment of workload by the students. Chapters were then weighted according to relevance and workload, and credits were distributed proportionally. This process ensured a balanced distribution of credits while considering the students' needs and the clinical importance of the chapters.
resultsThe results reveal that of 437 chapters spread over 26 modules, the majority were judged "Essential" (48.8%) or "Indispensable" (32.5%) in terms of relevance. 8.4% of the courses were eliminated or transferred. The workload was distributed equitably, with significant differences between 4th and 5th year courses mainly in the proportion of heavy workload (17% in 4th year vs. 2% in 5th year; p < 0.001) and in the average course weight (1.24 in 4th year vs. 1.14 in 5th year; p = 0.04). Credits were allocated according to chapter weight, with some modules receiving more than 6 credits. A grouping of subjects was proposed to balance the number of credits between semesters.
conclusionIn conclusion, this study developed an objective framework for weighting medical courses, and aligning credit distribution with relevance and student workload. Furthermore. it optimized curriculum design by balancing semester loads, prioritizing general practice, and eliminating less pertinent courses. While innovative, limitations like unvalidated metrics invite future research to refine and enhance medical education frameworks.
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.