Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37288230›Full record

ReviewCureus2023

Formative Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) as an Assessment Tool in UK Undergraduate Medical Education: A Review of Its Utility.

Khalid Al-Hashimi, Umar N Said, Taherah N Khan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The objective structured clinical examination in family medicine training: A comprehensive review for the South African context.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Khalid Al-HashimiVascular Surgery, Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, Shrewsbury, GBR.
Umar N SaidTrauma and Orthopaedics, Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, Huddersfield, GBR.
Taherah N KhanGeneral Medicine, Worcestershire Acute Hospital NHS Trust, Worcestershire, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a globally established clinical examination; it is often considered the gold standard in evaluating clinical competence within medicine and other healthcare professionals' educations alike. The OSCE consists of a circuit of multiple stations testing a multitude of clinical competencies expected of undergraduate students at certain levels throughout training. Despite its widespread use, the evidence regarding formative renditions of the examination in medical training is highly variable; thus, its suitability as an assessment has been challenged for various reasons. Classically, Van Der Vleuten's formula of utility has been adopted in the appraisal of assessment methods as means of testing, including the OSCE. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature surrounding the formative use of OSCEs in undergraduate medical training, whilst specifically focusing on the constituents of the equation and means of mitigating factors that compromise its objectivity.

Indexed as

clinical competencyclinical skills assessmentformative assessmentsobjective structured clinical examination (osce)undergraduate medical education

Identifiers

PMID37288230
PMCPMC10241740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.