ArticleBMC medical education2026
Continuing medical education in renal pathology: current practices and needs among nephrologists.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate nephrologists' attitudes toward renal pathology continuing medical education (CME), current problems, as well as their demands for CME
methodsA self-designed questionnaire survey themed "The Value of Renal Pathology in Clinical Diagnosis, Treatment and CME Across Medical Institutions at All Levels" was conducted among 281 nephrologists. Descriptive statistical analysis, chi-square tests and logistic regression analysis were performed on the survey data.
resultsA total of 256 valid questionnaires were included, with the demographic profile as follows: 56.6% females, 29.7% aged over 40 years, 26.6% with senior titles or above, 41% with over 10 years of working experience, and 42.2% working in Class B tertiary hospitals and below. All respondents recognized the clinical value of renal pathology, with female and senior physicians showing more positive attitudes. Physicians in primary institutions faced prominent difficulties in linking pathological findings to clinical manifestations. Only 53.1% of the respondents participated in at least one training session per year, mainly due to time conflicts and lack of targeted content. Most physicians regarded clinico-pathological case analysis as the core training content, while senior/title-holding physicians also needed training on renal pathology advances and new technologies. And primary institutions demanded support for specimen referral and telepathology consultation.
conclusionRenal pathology training for nephrologists urgently needs to be strengthened and expanded. The content should cover clinico-pathological case analysis, pathological report interpretation, research advances and new technologies, according to the needs-oriented principle. Besides, practical remote slide-reading training was suggested.
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.