ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology1994
Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics in undergraduate medical education in the UK: the future.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- An evaluation of pharmacology curricula in Australian science and health-related degree programs.BMC medical education · 2013Article
- Prescribing in the elderly.Postgraduate medical journal · 1995Article
- Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics in undergraduate medical education in the UK: current status.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 1994Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
1. Changes in undergraduate medical education will involve the development of a core curriculum of material of essential knowledge and of the skills for self directed learning both as a student and a postgraduate. A survey of departments or individuals teaching clinical pharmacology and therapeutics was conducted to consider what a core curriculum in these subjects might contain and how changes in the school curriculum would affect teaching in the future. 2. A questionnaire was developed based on an American consensus statement on the core curriculum in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics. Freetext answers were encouraged. Twenty-seven medical schools were surveyed; 21 (78%) replied. 3. Items of core knowledge (as defined by the American statement) were generally rated important or very important. The most important were considered to be (in order): prescribing for the elderly, management of overdose and adverse drug reactions. All of these were widely taught (85-100%). The least important items were the efficacy and toxicity of nonprescription drugs (taught by 35%) and the process of drug development and approval (taught nevertheless by 95%). 4. Core skills were generally rated less important, and less often taught. It was felt by many respondents that these skills, as defined, were excessively detailed for British undergraduates and more appropriate for postgraduate education. 5. Core attitudes were rated as being of intermediate importance, but not widely taught as it was felt that these could best be inculcated by example rather than formal teaching. Again, many felt that these attitudes were inappropriate for a UK core curriculum.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
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.