RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 How are residents trained in neuropathology? A survey of neurology program directors in the United States
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.08.16.20176222
DO 10.1101/2020.08.16.20176222
A1 Appaji Rayi
A1 Kiran Rajneesh
A1 Vineet Punia
A1 Amanda R. Start
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/19/2020.08.16.20176222.abstract
AB To understand the current state of neuropathology education during neurology residency training in the United States, we electronically distributed a 16-item survey to 150 adult and 70 child neurology program directors (PDs). The survey inquired about their residency program characteristics, neuropathology curriculum and assessment methods, trainee performance in the subject and attitude about neuropathology education. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize categorical variables as frequencies and percentages and continuous as means and standard deviations. We conducted a series of Mann-Whitney U and Fisher’s exact tests to evaluate differences between various program characteristics. Sixty-four (29%) PDs responded to the survey, including 45 (30%) adult and 19 (27%) child neurology PDs. Thirty-one programs required a dedicated neuropathology rotation typically during the latter years of the program. Residency in-service training exam (RITE) was the main assessment tool (92%) for assessing the trainee’s knowledge in neuropathology. Overall, 87% of the PDs agreed that neuropathology is essential and 85% agreed that there is a clear need for a defined neuropathology curriculum during residency training. There was no difference in the RITE scores between programs with and without a dedicated neuropathology rotation. We conclude that a neuropathology rotation was felt to be essential even though the RITE scores did not differ between programs with and without a dedicated rotation. Alternative evaluation methods and neuropathology training techniques such as web modules, virtual reality may be helpful tools to optimize training and need consideration.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNoneAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Ohio State University IRB has provided ethical oversight and approval of this study.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAnonymized data is available upon request from the Corresponding Author.