ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
A Scoping Review of Assessment Methods Following Undergraduate Clinical Placements in Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Anesthesia and intensive care medicine are relatively new undergraduate medical placements. Both present unique learning opportunities and educational challenges to trainers and medical students. In the context of ongoing advances in medical education assessment and the importance of robust assessment methods, our scoping review sought to describe current research around medical student assessment after anesthesia and intensive care placements. Methods: Following Levac's 6 step scoping review guide, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, SCOPUS, and Web of Science from 1980 to August 2021, including English-language original articles describing assessment after undergraduate medical placements in anesthesia and intensive care medicine. Results were reported in accordance with PRISMA scoping review guidelines. Results: Nineteen articles published between 1983 and 2021 were selected for detailed review, with a mean of 119 participants and a median placement duration of 4 weeks. The most common assessment tools used were multiple-choice questions (7 studies), written assessment (6 studies) and simulation (6 studies). Seven studies used more than one assessment tool. All pre-/post-test studies showed an improvement in learning outcomes following clinical placements. No studies used workplace-based assessments or entrustable professional activities. One study included an account of theoretical considerations in study design. Discussion: A diverse range of evidence-based assessment tools have been used in undergraduate medical assessment after anesthesia and intensive care placements. There is little evidence that recent developments in workplace assessment, entrustable activities and programmatic assessment have translated to undergraduate anesthesia or intensive care practice. This represents an area for further research as well as for curricular and assessment developments.
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.