• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Current literature: an educational tool to study osteonecrosis for the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination?

作者信息

Marker David R, Mont Michael A, Seyler Thorsten M, LaPorte Dawn M, Frassica Frank J

机构信息

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 601 North Caroline Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.

出版信息

Orthop Clin North Am. 2009 Apr;40(2):299-304. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2008.10.011.

DOI:10.1016/j.ocl.2008.10.011
PMID:19358916
Abstract

The Orthopaedic In-Training Examination (OITE) is used to evaluate the knowledge of residents and focuses on relevant information supported by current scientific literature. The purpose of this study was to assess the relevance of current literature as a study tool for the exam, especially for osteonecrosis-related material. A systematic review was conducted of the OITE and relevant journals to compare the proportion and characterization of questions and published studies related to osteonecrosis and other frequently tested subject areas over a 5-year period (2002 to 2006). This review suggests that the OITE and literature are generally similar in content. However, there may be some differences, especially in subspecialty journals, due to the emphasis of a specific subject area and non-validated procedures which makes them a less preferred resource for OITE preparation.

摘要

相似文献

1
Current literature: an educational tool to study osteonecrosis for the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination?
Orthop Clin North Am. 2009 Apr;40(2):299-304. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2008.10.011.
2
Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.从临床试验参与者中获取不良反应数据。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 16;1(1):MR000039. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000039.pub2.
3
Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review.心理健康问题的居家治疗:一项系统综述
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(15):1-139. doi: 10.3310/hta5150.
4
Patient-doctor communication.医患沟通。
Med Clin North Am. 2003 Sep;87(5):1115-45. doi: 10.1016/s0025-7125(03)00066-x.
5
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine and vinorelbine in non-small-cell lung cancer.对紫杉醇、多西他赛、吉西他滨和长春瑞滨在非小细胞肺癌中的临床疗效和成本效益进行的快速系统评价。
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(32):1-195. doi: 10.3310/hta5320.
6
Conceptual framework and systematic review of the effects of participants' and professionals' preferences in randomised controlled trials.随机对照试验中参与者和专业人员偏好影响的概念框架与系统评价
Health Technol Assess. 2005 Sep;9(35):1-186, iii-iv. doi: 10.3310/hta9350.
7
Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.转移性皮肤黑色素瘤的全身治疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 6;2(2):CD011123. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011123.pub2.
8
A systematic review of speech, language and communication interventions for children with Down syndrome from 0 to 6 years.对0至6岁唐氏综合征儿童言语、语言和沟通干预措施的系统评价。
Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2022 Mar;57(2):441-463. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12699. Epub 2022 Feb 22.
9
The educational effects of portfolios on undergraduate student learning: a Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide No. 11.档案袋对本科学生学习的教育效果:最佳证据医学教育(BEME)系统评价。BEME指南第11号。
Med Teach. 2009 Apr;31(4):282-98. doi: 10.1080/01421590902889897.
10
Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy.利用预后信息为乳腺癌患者选择辅助性全身治疗的成本效益
Health Technol Assess. 2006 Sep;10(34):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-204. doi: 10.3310/hta10340.