ArticleThe Journal of chiropractic education2015
Clinical competency evaluation of Brazilian chiropractic interns.
Article in The Journal of chiropractic education, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study compares the results of an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) between 2 groups of students before an internship and after 6 months of clinical practice in an internship.
methodsSeventy-two students participated, with 36 students in each cohort. The OSCEs were performed in the simulation laboratory before the participants' clinical practice internship and after 6 months of the internship. Students were tested in 9 stations for clinical skills and knowledge. The same procedures were repeated for both cohorts. The t test was used for unpaired parametric samples and Fisher's exact test was used for comparison of proportions.
resultsThere was no difference in the mean final score between the 2 groups (p = .34 for test 1; p = .08 for test 2). The performance of the students in group 1 was not significantly different when performed before and after 6 months of clinical practice, but in group 2 there was a significant decrease in the average score after 6 months of clinical practice.
conclusionsThere was no difference in the cumulative average score for the 2 groups before and after 6 months of clinical practice in the internship. There were differences within the cohorts, however, with a significant decrease in the average score in group 2. Issues pertaining to test standardization and student motivation for test 2 may have influenced the scores.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.