ArticleBMJ open2022
Perspectives, benefits and challenges of a live OSCE during the COVID-19 pandemic in a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating construct validity of virtual osces in exceptional conditions.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Impact of gender on self-assessment accuracy among fourth-year French medical students on faculty's online Objective Structured Clinical Examinations.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the effectiveness of using flipped classroom in puncture skills teaching.BMC medical education · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRestrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic mandated fundamental changes to student evaluations, including the administration of the observed structured clinical examination (OSCE). This study aims to conduct an in-person OSCE to verify students' practical skills under necessary infection control practices and the impact of face masks on student-patient interactions.
designCross-sectional design.
settingThe OSCE at Medical School of Tuebingen takes place in October 2020.
participantsA total of 149 students (third year of study) completed the survey (RR=80.1%). It was their first OSCE. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was how this type of OSCE was evaluated by participating students in regard to preparation, content and difficulty as well as in real life. Secondary outcome measures were how the implemented hygiene actions influenced the OSCE, including the interaction and communication between students and standardised patients (SPs). Items were rated on a 6-point Likert scale (1=completely to 6=not at all). Means, SDs, frequencies and percentages were calculated.
results149 students, 32 SPs and 59 examiners participated. The students rated the OSCE with 2.37 (±0.52) for preparation and 2.07 (±0.32) for content. They perceived the interaction to be significantly disrupted by the use of face masks (3.03±1.54) (p<0.001) compared with the SPs (3.84±1.44) and the examiners (4.14±1.55). In general, the three groups considered the use of face masking the OSCE to be helpful (1.60±1.15).
conclusionsAn in-person OSCE, even in the midst of a global pandemic, is feasible and acceptable to both students and faculty. When compared the students' results to previous students' results who completed the OSCE before the pandemic, the results indicated that students felt less prepared than under non-pandemic circumstances; however, their performances on this OSCE were not lower.
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.