ArticlePerspectives on medical education2025
The Anatomy of Change: A Scoping Review of Surgical Curriculum Renewal Processes.
Article in Perspectives on 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.
- Trainee and Faculty Perspectives of Neurointerventional Curricula in Residency: a Scoping Review.The clinical teacher · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Renewal of surgical curricula is critical in maintaining relevance to contemporary healthcare needs. A curriculum document usually describes its purpose, intended outcomes, content, methods, and assessment and evaluation processes. The document may also consider cultural, professional, political, and social contexts. While there are published curriculum development approaches, guidance on renewal processes is limited. This scoping review aims to synthesise literature on surgical curriculum renewal, to understand the key elements of this process, and identify areas for improvement. Methods: A scoping review was conducted by the core author team, with co-creation involving a Knowledge User Group (KUG). Seven databases were searched for sources published since 2003. Sources relating to curriculum renewal were included, and data were extracted via iterative and consultative processes involving both core authors and the KUG. Themes were identified via qualitative content analysis and thematic mapping of reported features. Results: Eighteen sources were included from an originally identified 2359 articles. Six models of curriculum development were characterised, yet no curriculum renewal model was delineated. Terminology was inconsistent. Primary participants (trainees and trainers) tended to be consulted but not included in curriculum renewal teams. Factors including participant engagement, educational support, and financial resources were identified as enablers in particular environments, and considered as barriers in other contexts. Drivers for renewal included changes in surgical education and training; in surgical practice; and, participant concerns. Discussion: Addressing identified barriers can transform them into catalysts for change. Greater standardisation of terminology in surgical curriculum renewal is needed. The field would benefit from purpose-built frameworks, educational scholarship, co-design, and the implementation of strategies to ensure barriers to renewal become enablers of the surgical curriculum renewal process.
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.