Dataset Information

Evidence based post graduate training. A systematic review of reviews based on the WFME quality framework.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A framework for high quality in post graduate training has been defined by the World Federation of Medical Education (WFME). The objective of this paper is to perform a systematic review of reviews to find current evidence regarding aspects of quality of post graduate training and to organise the results following the 9 areas of the WFME framework.

Methods

The systematic literature review was conducted in 2009 in Medline Ovid, EMBASE, ERIC and RDRB databases from 1995 onward. The reviews were selected by two independent researchers and a quality appraisal was based on the SIGN tool.

Results

31 reviews met inclusion criteria. The majority of the reviews provided information about the training process (WFME area 2), the assessment of trainees (WFME area 3) and the trainees (WFME area 4). One review covered the area 8 'governance and administration'. No review was found in relation to the mission and outcomes, the evaluation of the training process and the continuous renewal (respectively areas 1, 7 and 9 of the WFME framework).

Conclusions

The majority of the reviews provided information about the training process, the assessment of trainees and the trainees. Indicators used for quality assessment purposes of post graduate training should be based on this evidence but further research is needed for some areas in particular to assess the quality of the training process.

SUBMITTER: Damen A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3200166 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evidence based post graduate training. A systematic review of reviews based on the WFME quality framework.

Damen Annelies A Remmen Roy R Wens Johan J Paulus Dominique D

BMC medical education 20111006

<h4>Background</h4>A framework for high quality in post graduate training has been defined by the World Federation of Medical Education (WFME). The objective of this paper is to perform a systematic review of reviews to find current evidence regarding aspects of quality of post graduate training and to organise the results following the 9 areas of the WFME framework.<h4>Methods</h4>The systematic literature review was conducted in 2009 in Medline Ovid, EMBASE, ERIC and RDRB databases from 1995 o ...[more]

PMID: 21977898

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the quality of reporting of harms in systematic reviews, and to determine the need for a reporting guideline specific for reviews of harms.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE).Review methodsDatabases were searched for systematic reviews having an adverse event as the main outcome, published from January 2008 to April 2011. Adverse events included an adverse reaction, harms, or complications associated with any healthcare intervention. Articles with a primary aim to investigate the complete safety profile of an intervention were also included. We developed a list of 37 items to measure the quality of reporting on harms in each review; data were collected as dichotomous outcomes ("yes" or "no" for each item).ResultsOf 4644 reviews identified, 309 were systematic reviews or meta-analyses primarily assessing harms (13 from CDSR; 296 from DARE). Despite a short time interval, the comparison between the years of 2008 and 2010-11 showed no difference on the quality of reporting over time (P=0.079). Titles in fewer than half the reviews (proportion of reviews 0.46 (95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.52)) did not mention any harm related terms. Almost one third of DARE reviews (0.26 (0.22 to 0.31)) did not clearly define the adverse events reviewed, nor did they specify the study designs selected for inclusion in their methods section. Almost half of reviews (n=170) did not consider patient risk factors or length of follow-up when reviewing harms of an intervention. Of 67 reviews of complications related to surgery or other procedures, only four (0.05 (0.01 to 0.14)) reported professional qualifications of the individuals involved. The overall, unweighted, proportion of reviews with good reporting was 0.56 (0.55 to 0.57); corresponding proportions were 0.55 (0.53 to 0.57) in 2008, 0.55 (0.54 to 0.57) in 2009, and 0.57 (0.55 to 0.58) in 2010-11.ConclusionSystematic reviews compound the poor reporting of harms data in primary studies by failing to report on harms or doing so inadequately. Improving reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews is an important step towards a balanced assessment of an intervention.

Project description:BackgroundThe introduction of new medical technologies such as sensors has accelerated the process of collecting patient data for relevant clinical decisions, which has led to the introduction of a new technology known as digital biomarkers.ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the methodological quality and quality of evidence from meta-analyses of digital biomarker-based interventions.MethodsThis study follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline for reporting systematic reviews, including original English publications of systematic reviews reporting meta-analyses of clinical outcomes (efficacy and safety endpoints) of digital biomarker-based interventions compared with alternative interventions without digital biomarkers. Imaging or other technologies that do not measure objective physiological or behavioral data were excluded from this study. A literature search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library was conducted, limited to 2019-2020. The quality of the methodology and evidence synthesis of the meta-analyses were assessed using AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations), respectively. This study was funded by the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund of Hungary.ResultsA total of 25 studies with 91 reported outcomes were included in the final analysis; 1 (4%), 1 (4%), and 23 (92%) studies had high, low, and critically low methodologic quality, respectively. As many as 6 clinical outcomes (7%) had high-quality evidence and 80 outcomes (88%) had moderate-quality evidence; 5 outcomes (5%) were rated with a low level of certainty, mainly due to risk of bias (85/91, 93%), inconsistency (27/91, 30%), and imprecision (27/91, 30%). There is high-quality evidence of improvements in mortality, transplant risk, cardiac arrhythmia detection, and stroke incidence with cardiac devices, albeit with low reporting quality. High-quality reviews of pedometers reported moderate-quality evidence, including effects on physical activity and BMI. No reports with high-quality evidence and high methodological quality were found.ConclusionsResearchers in this field should consider the AMSTAR-2 criteria and GRADE to produce high-quality studies in the future. In addition, patients, clinicians, and policymakers are advised to consider the results of this study before making clinical decisions regarding digital biomarkers to be informed of the degree of certainty of the various interventions investigated in this study. The results of this study should be considered with its limitations, such as the narrow time frame.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/28204.

Dataset Information

Evidence based post graduate training. A systematic review of reviews based on the WFME quality framework.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Evidence based post graduate training. A systematic review of reviews based on the WFME quality framework.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets