ReviewPediatric cardiology2026
A Call to Reform Congenital Interventional Cardiology Training: A PICES Community Survey.
Review in Pediatric cardiology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Congenital interventional cardiology fellowships are currently unaccredited by the ACGME, leading to significant variability in recruitment and training practices across North America. This study assessed satisfaction among recent trainees and identified opportunities for standardization and improvement. A web-based survey was distributed to pediatric and congenital interventional cardiologists, who had completed fellowship within the past 15 years in North America. Respondents provided feedback on their recruitment experiences, satisfaction with the process, and perspectives on training structure. A total of 69 individuals responded. Only 14% were satisfied with the current fellowship application and recruitment system, while 51% expressed dissatisfaction. A majority (55%) felt that a standardized match process would offer greater equity, and 83% favored a universal date for position offers. Nearly all respondents (n = 67; 97%) agreed there should be a formal date and method by which programs announce their intention to accept applications. Additionally, 82% supported incorporating structured feedback or milestones into training. The majority (77%) felt supported during training and 68% agreed that 12 months represented an adequate timeframe, but only 55% felt prepared to perform complex interventional procedures independently at the conclusion of their training year. Most respondents viewed the current non-standardized recruitment process unfavorably. There is a strong consensus favoring a universal timeline and increased structure in training, highlighting the opportunity for reform.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42012641What 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.