Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41455070›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2025

Creating A Positive Professional Culture: Addressing Academic Bullying.

Elizabeth Soo, Casey Seideman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Elizabeth SooDepartment of Urology, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR, 97239, USA. soo@ohsu.edu.
Casey SeidemanDepartment of Urology, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR, 97239, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review aims to define academic bullying, describe its prevalence and impact, and explore multi-level approaches for addressing this form of workplace mistreatment and enacting reform. RECENT

findingsAcademic bullying is a prevalent form of workplace mistreatment that contributes to poor patient satisfaction, physician burnout, and medical errors. Numerous factors have been proposed as potential reasons for widespread prevalence, including established hierarchy, cultural tolerance, and lack of institutional reporting processes. Evidence suggests that certain populations including women, underrepresented minority members, and LGBTQ + individuals are at greater risk of experiencing academic bullying. This review outlines academic bullying in medicine, including its definition, prevalence, and impact. Here, we describe populations at increased risk of experiencing academic bullying and consolidate proposed solutions to address this mistreatment. Main findings include that vulnerable populations include women, underrepresented minority individuals, and members of the LGBTQ + community and that future solutions include a multilevel approach at the national, institutional, and individual levels.

Indexed as

BullyingOrganizational CultureBurnout, ProfessionalFemaleHumansAcademic bullyingAcademic medicineProfessional culture

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.