SynthesisMedEdPublish (2016)2022
A systematic review of effective quality feedback measurement tools used in clinical skills assessment.
Synthesis in MedEdPublish (2016), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of effective quality feedback measurement tools used in clinical skills assessment.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2022Pooled it
- Empowering medical students: Peer-Led OSCE reduces anxiety and may enhance test performance.PloS one · 2026Trial
- Enhancing history-taking education through GPT-4-based virtual patients and automated assessment: a study of medical student perceptions.Korean journal of medical education · 2026Article
- Nursing students' experiences of professional competence evaluation by Objective Structured Clinical examination method: a qualitative content analysis study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Curricular Redundancy in Medical Undergraduate Course: Critical Insights from Various Stakeholders in Medical Institutes in India.Avicenna journal of medicine · 2024Article
- Objective structured clinical examination to teach competency in planetary health care and management - a prospective observational study.BMC medical education · 2024Observational
- Learning from medical errors.CVIR endovascular · 2024Review
- A retrospective feedback analysis of objective structured clinical examination performance of undergraduate medical students.MedEdPublish (2016) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObjective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a valid tool to assess the clinical skills of medical students. Feedback after OSCE is essential for student improvement and safe clinical practice. Many examiners do not provide helpful or insightful feedback in the text space provided after OSCE stations, which may adversely affect learning outcomes. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the best determinants for quality written feedback in the field of medicine. Methods: PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINHAL, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for relevant literature up to February 2021. We included studies that described the quality of good/effective feedback in clinical skills assessment in the field of medicine. Four independent reviewers extracted determinants used to assess the quality of written feedback. The percentage agreement and kappa coefficients were calculated for each determinant. The ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions) tool was used to assess the risk of bias.
results14 studies were included in this systematic review. 10 determinants were identified for assessing feedback. The determinants with the highest agreement among reviewers were specific, described gap, balanced, constructive and behavioural; with kappa values of 0.79, 0.45, 0.33, 0.33 and 0.26 respectively. All other determinants had low agreement (kappa values below 0.22) indicating that even though they have been used in the literature, they might not be applicable for good quality feedback. The risk of bias was low or moderate overall.
conclusionsThis work suggests that good quality written feedback should be specific, balanced, and constructive in nature, and should describe the gap in student learning as well as observed behavioural actions in the exams. Integrating these determinants in OSCE assessment will help guide and support educators for providing effective feedback for the learner.
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.