ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Developing evaluation index system for "new medicine" construction in Chinese medical schools-meta-ethnography and Delphi-AHP approach.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study intends to construct a scientific, comprehensive and operable evaluation index system for the constructing achievements of "New Medicine" in medical schools and contribute to promoting the innovative development of medical education in China. Methods: The study adopted a sequential mixed-methods design. An initial indicator system was first constructed through meta-ethnographic analysis, which was subsequently refined through two rounds of Delphi consultations by 12 experts. In the final stage, the relative weights of the indicators were quantified and validated using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Results: The final evaluation index system includes 11 first-level indicators and 37 second-level indicators. Among them, the top three first-level indicators with the highest weight coefficients are the reform of the curriculum system (0.1790), the education and training of medical students (0.1550), and the optimization and adjustment of the structure of disciplines and majors (0.1530), emphasizing the fundamental role of these three in school's medical education, while the stakeholder feedback mechanism (0.0190) is used as a supplementary element. Conclusion: This study constructs an scientifically grounded evaluation index system for the development of "New Medicine" in medical schools, addressing the current lack in existing research of quantifiable measures for assessing medical innovation education in the new era. Meanwhile, it can serve as a reference for relevant researches on medical education reform, and provide evaluation benchmark for education regulatory departments, policy makers, as well as medical school administrators.
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.