ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Intensive care subspecialty in turkey: what do emergency medicine physicians think?
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study is to investigate the tendencies, self-perceived knowledge, perceived barriers, and expectations of Emergency Medicine (EM) physicians working in Turkey regarding the Intensive Care (IC) subspecialty.
methodsA cross-sectional, descriptive survey study was conducted between July and September 2025. A total of 304 EM physicians actively working in Turkey were included in the study. The survey form consisted of 12 questions covering demographic information, self-perceived knowledge, experience, tendency, motivation, opinions, and expectations. Data were analyzed using SPSS 28.0 with chi-square tests for categorical variables and multivariate logistic regression for factors associated with subspecialty tendency and self-perceived knowledge.
resultsAmong participants, 80.6% had experience in patient follow-up in IC. While 43.1% were considering pursuing an IC subspecialty, only 9.5% had detailed information about it. Duration of practice, gender, self-perceived knowledge, and IC experience were significantly associated with subspecialty tendency (p < 0.001 for all). Multivariate analysis identified self-perceived knowledge (OR = 3.07) and IC experience (OR = 6.70) as independently associated factors for subspecialty tendency, while IC experience was the only significant associated factor for self-perceived knowledge (p < 0.001 for all). Primary motivations included better working conditions and salary, whereas barriers were uncertainty and compulsory service. Top suggestions included strengthening communication and cooperation, increasing self-perceived knowledge, and regulating compulsory service.
conclusionEM physicians show notable interest in IC subspecialty, with self-perceived knowledge and IC experience as the strongest predictors of preference. Strategies to increase subspecialty tendency should include implementing informational programs, enhancing IC rotation quality, improving working conditions, and reviewing compulsory service regulations.
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.