ArticleJournal of CME2026
The Importance of Content Validity in Accredited Continuing Medical Education/Continuing Professional Development (CME/CPD).
Article in Journal of CME, 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
The Cologne Consensus Conference 2025 (CCC25), official meeting of the International Academy for CPD Accreditation (IACPDA), sought to explore opportunities for how accrediting bodies could ensure that the organisations or educational activities they accredit are demonstrating compliance with the IACPDA "Standards for Substantive Equivalency between CPD/CME Accreditation Systems", with a focus on how to align content selection with needs assessment to ensure that "content presented is relevant and responsive to the identified needs of the target audience". Based on the fact that it has become unmanageable for the individual doctor and/or faculty member to - get an unbiased overview over all evidence related to the clinical question in areas with exponential growth of evidence, or- find data relevant to the individual patient in the bulk of evidence without use of advanced search technologies, accrediting bodies recommend that providers, organizers of education, or even individual learners should consider evidence synthesis reports to be used in (accredited) CE, that are 1. independent2. publicly accessible and free of charge3. timely4. comprehensive and transparent, and5. user-friendly. As well, producers and/or publishers of evidence synthesis reports, ideally, might also offer opportunities for advanced searches, which, in the future, might increasingly be supported by artificial intelligence.
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.