ArticleMedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources2020
A Process and Rubric for a Group to Review the Quality of a Medical Education Course/Clerkship.
Article in MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conditional dependence of the "male-SCC, female-ADC" teaching heuristic in lung cancer: shifts in exposure pathways and the need for pathology education reform.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Mission Critical: Reimagining Promotion for Clinician-Educators.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Reviewing elements of a curriculum, such as courses and clerkships in medical school, is an essential part of the quality improvement process. Yet there is a gap in the literature in terms of actual rubrics for evaluating course quality in medical schools. Methods: This resource describes a course review process and rubric to evaluate course quality: A subcommittee of faculty members and students evaluates goals, content and delivery, assessment, feedback to students, grading, and student feedback for each course with the rubric. Course directors, Curriculum Committee members, and Curriculum Evaluation Subcommittee members were surveyed on their perception of the process. Results: A large majority of Curriculum Committee and Curriculum Evaluation Subcommittee members agreed that the review process was objective (100%), provided an evaluation of course quality (>95%), helped identify areas of improvement/strengths (>91%) and issues/concerns in the curriculum (>95%), helped them become more familiar with the curriculum (>90%), and was a catalyst for changes in a course (>77%). Course/clerkship directors had less agreement that the course review process was a catalyst for curriculum changes (46%) and that the process helped identify areas of improvement for a course (62%). Discussion: This curriculum evaluation process provides a resource for other institutions to use and/or modify for their own course evaluation process. All stakeholders in the review process agreed that the evaluation process was successful in identifying areas that worked and did not work in courses.
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.