Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34027056›Full record

ArticleAcademic pathology

Pathology Resident Evaluation During the Pandemic: Testing and Implementation of a Comprehensive Online Pathology Exam.

Susan M Armstrong, Paula Nixon, Carlo V Hojilla

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Academic pathology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Susan M ArmstrongDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Paula NixonDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Carlo V HojillaDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite global digitization, evaluating pathology trainees by paper exams remains the norm. As new social distancing practices require new ways of administering exams, we assessed the viability of an online format for in-house exams from the resident and examiner perspectives. First, pathology residents participated in a practice exam, while staff who were experienced in creating exams were given an online exam-creation demonstration. Subsequently, residents completed a formal 3-hour online exam comprised of multiple-choice, matching, short answer, and whole slide images in place of the paper exam regularly used to evaluate trainees. The experience of the participants was evaluated by surveys. Eighteen residents completed the practice exam; 67% were receptive to the new format and 94% were in favor of moving to digital exams. Seven staff evaluated the digital format and 6 were in favor of it. For the formal online in-house exam, 20 residents participated and 14 completed the survey. Feedback was generally positive with the most common issue being slow-loading digital slides. Exam scores stratified by postgraduate training years in a statistically significant manner, showing positive correlation with resident training level. The online exam format was preferred over paper exams by trainees, with support from both staff and trainees for a permanent transition. Online exams have clear advantages, but technical issues should be addressed before widespread implementation. Our study demonstrates that online exams are a feasible alternative for trainee assessment, especially in socially distanced environments.

Indexed as

digital pathologyexam designonline examresident educationsocial distancing

Identifiers

PMID34027056
PMCPMC8120522

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.