Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Surgical training in the United States is undergoing a significant transformation, with a shift from the traditional model-general surgery followed by specialized fellowships-to integrated residency programs that offer early specialization. This shift has sparked debate over the impact on surgical competency, training efficiency, and outcomes. Proponents of integrated training highlight benefits such as earlier specialization, increased procedural volume, enhanced technical skills, and improved mentorship and research opportunities. However, critics argue that bypassing a comprehensive general surgery foundation can result in diminished surgical breadth, increased reliance on consultants, and decreased exposure to critical surgical experiences-potentially impacting both trainee development and general surgery programs. This manuscript explores the historical context, comparative advantages, and limitations of both training paradigms.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00031348251337168 | DOI Listing |