The science of continuing medical education: Terms, tools, and gaps

Dave Davis*, Georges Bordage, Lisa K. Moores, Nancy Bennett, Spyndon S. Marinopoulos, Paul E. Mazmanian, Todd Dorman, Douglas McCrory

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

48 Scopus citations


Background: By its synthesis of a selected portion of the continuing medical education (CME) literature, the evidence-based practice center (EPC) review discovered several major issues in primary study design and in the systematic review process of CME studies. Through this process, the review speaks to the need for clarity in designing, reporting and synthesizing CME trials and provides an opportunity to advance the research agenda in this field. Methods: The evidence-based guideline (EBG) committee reviewed the methods section of the EPC report and these guidelines in detail, commenting on the search and review process and on the nature of the primary literature and the definitions used within it, comparing these to other published standardized measures. Results: Although the EBG committee noted much strength in the EPC review, limitations of the primary literature and the review methodology were identified and defined. These strengths and limitations hold implications for further research in this area. Conclusions: Noting these limitations and in order to move the field forward, the EBG committee proposes a standard nomenclature of terms in common use in CME; a more rigorous process of searching, distilling, and synthesizing the primary literature in this area; and a common format on which to base the development and description of future trials of CME interventions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)8S-16S
Issue number3 SUPPL.
StatePublished - Mar 2009


  • Continuing medical education
  • Research
  • Research agenda
  • Research methods
  • Taxonomy


Dive into the research topics of 'The science of continuing medical education: Terms, tools, and gaps'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this