ArticleBMC medical education2016
An assessment of the Chilean National Examination of Orthopaedic Surgery.
Article in BMC medical education, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the Chilean National Orthopaedic Examination Over 11 Years: Progress and Outcomes of National and International Examinees.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Chilean National Examination of Orthopaedic Surgery (EMNOT) has been administered since 2009. It was developed to determine whether individual residents are meeting minimal knowledge standards at the end of their training programs.
methodsWe performed a retrospective evaluation of the EMNOT for all years it has been administered (2009-2015). The test was analyzed for content, taxonomy of questions asked (1: direct recall; 2: diagnosis; 3: evaluation/decision-making), residents' performance, difficulty index and discrimination index.
resultsDuring the years of EMNOT administration, the most frequently tested areas have been pediatric orthopaedics (22.9 %), spine (13.8 %), general orthopaedics (13.8 %) and musculoskeletal trauma (9.9 %). A significant increase in questions with images was observed, as well as a significant decrease in the percentage of Type 1 and an increase in Type 3 questions. The Difficulty Index showed a medium level of difficulty for all years the examination has been administered. The Discrimination Index showed good discrimination in 2009, fair discrimination from 2010 through 2012, and excellent discrimination from 2013 through 2015.
conclusionThe EMNOT has evolved over several years to include better quality questions, better discrimination, and a more representative distribution of questions covering the different orthopaedic sub-specialties. This examination represents an effective instrument for quality assurance of orthopaedic residency programs in Chile.
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.