Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKamali, Parisaen_US
dc.contributor.authorvan Paridon, Maaike W.en_US
dc.contributor.authorIbrahim, Ahmed M. S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPaul, Marek A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorWinters, Henri A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMartinot-Duquennoy, Veroniqueen_US
dc.contributor.authorNoah, Ernst Magnusen_US
dc.contributor.authorPallua, Norberten_US
dc.contributor.authorLin, Samuel J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-07-14T19:13:48Z
dc.date.issued2016en_US
dc.identifier.citationKamali, Parisa, Maaike W. van Paridon, Ahmed M. S. Ibrahim, Marek A. Paul, Henri A. Winters, Veronique Martinot-Duquennoy, Ernst Magnus Noah, Norbert Pallua, and Samuel J. Lin. 2016. “Plastic Surgery Training Worldwide: Part 1. The United States and Europe.” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open 4 (3): e641. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000000627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000000627.en
dc.identifier.issn2169-7574en
dc.identifier.urihttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:27662100
dc.description.abstractBackground: Major differences exist in residency training, and the structure and quality of residency programs differ between different countries and teaching centers. It is of vital importance that a better understanding of the similarities and differences in plastic surgery training be ascertained as a means of initiating constructive discussion and commentary among training programs worldwide. In this study, the authors provide an overview of plastic surgery training in the United States and Europe. Methods: A survey was sent to select surgeons in 10 European countries that were deemed to be regular contributors to the plastic surgery literature. The questions focused on pathway to plastic surgery residency, length of training, required pretraining experience, training scheme, research opportunities, and examinations during and after plastic surgery residency. Results: Plastic surgery residency training programs in the United States differ from the various (selected) countries in Europe and are described in detail. Conclusions: Plastic surgery education is vastly different between the United States and Europe, and even within Europe, training programs remain heterogeneous. Standardization of curricula across the different countries would improve the interaction of different centers and facilitate the exchange of vital information for quality control and future improvements. The unique characteristics of the various training programs potentially provide a basis from which to learn and to gain from one another.en
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.publisherWolters Kluwer Healthen
dc.relation.isversionofdoi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000000627en
dc.relation.hasversionhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4874285/pdf/en
dash.licenseLAAen_US
dc.titlePlastic Surgery Training Worldwide: Part 1. The United States and Europeen
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.description.versionVersion of Recorden
dc.relation.journalPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Openen
dash.depositing.authorKamali, Parisaen_US
dc.date.available2016-07-14T19:13:48Z
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/GOX.0000000000000627*
dash.contributor.affiliatedPaul, Marek
dash.contributor.affiliatedKamali-Sadeghian, Parisa
dash.contributor.affiliatedLin, Samuel


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record