Resultados del sistema de puntuación del Concurso Nacional de Ingreso a los Servicios de Salud entre 2016 y 2020 / Scores obtained by physicians in the national health services admission contest between 2016 and 2020

BACKGROUND: Medical specialists are an essential resource for the functioning of the health system and in Chile there is a growing deficit of these specialists. To address this shortage, the government has strategies for training health professionals, such as a national public contest for medical scholarships, named CONISS, which stands out for its high capacity to produce medical specialists. The scoring system of this contest is used for the allocation of training resources to the best candidates. AIM: To describe the results of the CONISS scoring system between 2016 and 2020. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Analysis of public registries of physicians participating in the CONISS contest between 2016 and 2020. RESULTS: During the study period 7,373 physicians participated in this contest (49% females). Annual participation increased progressively. The participants graduated from 21 Chilean universities and a variable number from foreign universities. The scores obtained by participants improved by 1.47 points between the first and last year of the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretation of these results is complicated by the characteristics and limitations of the measurements of the CONISS scoring system. This precludes establishing whether this system effectively filters out the best candidates for medical specialization programs.

Iniciativas disponibles para el reporte de resultados en investigación biomédica con diferentes tipos de diseño / Initiatives for reporting biomedical research results with different types of designs

La calidad del reporte de los resultados de una investigación no es óptima, razón por la cual, se han desarrollado numerosas iniciativas tendientes a mejorar este aspecto a lo largo de los años. El objetivo de este artículo es mencionar y describir las iniciativas existentes para el reporte de resultados de investigación biomédica en diversos escenarios de investigación clínica y situaciones especiales. Se realizó una búsqueda en las bases de datos THE COCHRANE LIBRARY, MEDLINE, SciELO y Redalyc; y en los buscadores Clinical Evidence, TRIP database, Fisterra, Rafabravo, EQUATOR Network, portal de BIREME y Programa HINARI; para obtener las listas de verificación existentes. Los documentos recuperados fueron agrupados de la siguiente forma: relacionados con escenarios de terapia, diagnóstico, pronóstico, evaluaciones económicas y misceláneas. La búsqueda generó un total de 31 documentos. Doce para escenarios de terapia (CONSORT, QUOROM, MOOSE, STRICTA, TREND, MINCIR-Terapia, RedHot, REHBaR, PRISMA, REFLECT, Ottawa y SPIRIT), 5 para diagnóstico (STARD, QUADAS, QAREL, GRRAS y MINCIR-Diagnóstico), 3 para pronóstico (REMARK, MINCIR-Pronóstico y GRIPS), 4 para evaluaciones económicas (NHS-HTA, CHEERS, ISPOR RCT-CEA y NICE-STA,); y 7 misceláneos (STROBE, COREQ, GRADE, SQUIRE, STREGA, ORION y MINCIR-EOD). Existen diversas iniciativas y declaraciones. Estas deben ser conocidas y utilizadas por escritores, revisores y editores de revistas biomédicas; de forma tal de incrementar la calidad del reporte de resultados de la investigación biomédica.

Quality of results reporting is not perfect, many initiatives tending to improve this aspect of clinical research have been developed in the last decade. The aim of this manuscript is to mention and describe the existent initiatives for reporting biomedical research results in different scenarios and special situations. To obtain check-lists, a search in THE COCHRANE LIBRARY, MEDLINE, SciELO y Redalyc; Clinical Evidence, TRIP database, Fisterra, Rafabravo, EQUATOR Network, BIREME and HINARI Program was developed. Identified documents were grouped in relation with clinical research scenarios (therapy, diagnosis, prognosis and economic evaluations) and miscellaneous. The search allows finding 31 documents. Twelve for therapy (CONSORT, QUOROM, MOOSE,STRICTA, TREND, MINCIR-Therapy, RedHot, REHBaR, PRISMA,REFLECT, Ottawa and SPIRIT), 5 for diagnosis (STARD, QUADAS, QAREL, GRRAS and MINCIR-Diagnosis), 3 for prognosis (REMARK, MINCIR-Prognosis and GRIPS), 4 for economic evaluations (NHS-HTA, CHEERS, ISPOR RCT-CEA and NICE-STA,) and 7 miscellaneous (STROBE, COREQ, GRADE, SQUIRE, STREGA, ORION and MINCIR-EOD). Different initiatives and statements were found. These must be noted and used by writers, reviewers and editors of biomedical journals, in order to improve the quality of reporting results.