Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32883720›Full record

SynthesisRMD open2020

Assessment of competences in rheumatology training: results of a systematic literature review to inform EULAR points to consider.

Alessia Alunno, Aurélie Najm, Francisca Sivera, Catherine Haines, Louise Falzon, Sofia Ramiro

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in RMD open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alessia AlunnoRheumatology Unit, University of Perugia Department of Medicine, Perugia, Italy alessia.alunno82@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1105-5640
Aurélie NajmUniversity Hospital, Inserm Umr 1238, Nantes, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6008-503X
Francisca SiveraDepartment of Rheumatology, Hospital General Universitario Elda, Elda, Spain.
Catherine HainesKing's College London, London, UK.
Louise FalzonCenter for Personalized Health, Northwell Health Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, USA.
Sofia RamiroDepartment of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo summarise the literature on the assessment of competences in postgraduate medical training.

methodsA systematic literature review was performed within a EULAR taskforce on the assessment of competences in rheumatology training and other related specialities (July 2019). Two searches were performed: one search for rheumatology and one for related medical specialities. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies and extracted data on assessment methods. Risk of bias was assessed using the medical education research study quality instrument.

resultsOf 7335 articles in rheumatology and 2324 reviews in other specialities, 5 and 31 original studies were included, respectively. Studies in rheumatology were at variable risk of bias and explored only direct observation of practical skills (DOPS) and objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs). OSCEs, including clinical, laboratory and imaging stations, performed best, with a good to very good internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.83-0.92), and intrarater reliability (r=0.80-0.95). OSCEs moderately correlated with other assessment tools: r=0.48 vs rating by programme directors; r=0.2-0.44 vs multiple-choice questionnaires; r=0.48 vs DOPS. In other specialities, OSCEs on clinical skills had a good to very good inter-rater reliability and OSCEs on communication skills demonstrated a good to very good internal consistency. Multisource feedback and the mini-clinical evaluation exercise showed good feasibility and internal consistency (reliability), but other data on validity and reliability were conflicting.

conclusionDespite consistent data on competence assessment in other specialities, evidence in rheumatology is scarce and conflicting. Overall, OSCEs seem an appropriate tool to assess the competence of clinical skills and correlate well with other assessment strategies. DOPS, multisource feedback and the mini-clinical evaluation exercise are feasible alternatives.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEducation, MedicalEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, GraduateHumansQuality Indicators, Health CareRheumatologySpecializationEpidemiologyHealth CareOutcome AssessmentQuality Indicators

Identifiers

PMID32883720
PMCPMC7508213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.