Trial reportMedical education online2023
Applying a video recording, video-based rating method in OSCEs.
Trial report in Medical education online, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of AI-based virtual standardized patients in physician-patient communication training: a study based on the SEGUE framework.Frontiers in public health · 2026Trial
- Reliable Assessment of Healthcare Procedures: A Comparison of On-Site and Video-Based Methods.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Resident Physician Recognition of Tachypnea in Clinical Simulation Videos in Japan: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- The effect of self-made video assessment on standardized nursing skills training.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionObjective structured clinical examination (OSCE) results could be affected by low homogeneity of examiners, non-retrospectiveness of test results, and examiner-cohort effect. In China, many students participate in medical qualification examinations, and this issue is particularly significant. This study aimed to develop a video recording, video-based rating method and compare the reliability of video and on-site ratings to enhance the quality assurance of OSCEs.
methodsThe subjects of this study were clinical students one year after graduation participating in the clinical skills portion of the National Medical Licensing Examination. The participants were from four cities in Jiangsu province. Participants were randomly allocated to on-site and video rating groups to evaluate the rating methods consistency. We verified the reliability of recording equipment and evaluability of video recording. Moreover, we compared the consistency and equivalence of the two rating methods and analyzed the impact of video recording on scores.
resultsThe reliability of recording equipment and evaluability of video recording were high. Evaluation consistency between experts and examiners was acceptable, and there was no difference in evaluation results (P = 0.61). There was good consistency between video and on-site rating; however, a difference between the two rating methods was detected. The scores of video-based rating group students were lower than those of all students (P < 0.00).
conclusionsVideo-based rating could be reliable and offer advantages over on-site rating. The video recording, video-based rating method could provide greater content validity based on its traceability and the ability to view details. Video recording, video-based rating offers a promising mthod for improving the effectiveness and fairness of OSCEs.
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.