ReviewCureus2022
Current Trends in Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise in Medical Education: A Bibliometric Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Mini-CEX as formative learning tool for clinical skills in undergraduate medical students in a private medical university in Karachi, Pakistan.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Effect of humanistic care-integrated Mini-CEX teachingon nursing students' clinical competence: a quasi-experimental study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- The combined application of Mini-CEX and Check-list Scales in enhancing clinical competence among emergency and critical care residents: a comparative study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- From shadowing to active learning: exploring the impact of supervised teaching clinics on gynecology education.Frontiers in medicine · 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
There has been emerging evidence supporting the mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) in various clinical specialties and settings. However, we need more clarity regarding the applicability of mini-CEX as an optimal assessment tool. Consequently, it has not been implemented on a wider scale, and several clinical specialties are yet to explore the benefits of mini-CEX. Therefore, we conducted a bibliometric analysis to investigate the publication trends of mini-CEX. We searched the Web of Science database for mini-CEX-related original and review articles. The search results were analyzed for year-wise contribution, citation trends, contributing journals, contributing institutions, countries, authors, distribution of original/review articles, retrospective/prospective/laboratory/other types of studies, specialties covered, nature of medical education (undergraduate vs. specialty trainees), and clinical settings involved in the studies (single/multiple). A total of 59 eligible articles (53 original and six review articles) were published between 1995 and 2022 in 35 different journals. The mean citations per year were 65.96 per year, and the mean citations per article per year were 2.34 citations per article per year. The articles published in
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.