ArticlePerspectives on medical education2023
An Analysis of Written and Numeric Scores in End-of-Rotation Forms from Three Residency Programs.
Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- FEAR: Faculty Evaluation and Retaliation-A Survey of Family Medicine Program Directors.Family medicine · 2026Article
- Conceptual Framework and Methods for Evaluating an Intervention to Improve Psychological Safety in Graduate Medical Education.Family medicine · 2026Article
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
Introduction: End-of-Rotation Forms (EORFs) assess resident progress in graduate medical education and are a major component of Clinical Competency Committee (CCC) discussion. Single-institution studies suggest EORFs can detect deficiencies, but both grades and comments skew positive. In this study, we sought to determine whether the EORFs from three programs, including multiple specialties and institutions, produced useful information for residents, program directors, and CCCs. Methods: Evaluations from three programs were included (Program 1, Institution A, Internal Medicine: n = 38; Program 2, Institution A, Anesthesia: n = 9; Program 3, Institution B, Anesthesia: n = 11). Two independent researchers coded each written comment for relevance (specificity and actionability) and orientation (praise or critical) using a standardized rubric. Numeric scores were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: 4869 evaluations were collected from the programs. Of the 77,434 discrete numeric scores, 691 (0.89%) were considered "below expected level." 71.2% (2683/3767) of the total written comments were scored as irrelevant, while 3217 (85.4%) of total comments were scored positive and 550 (14.6%) were critical. When combined, 63.2% (n = 2379) of comments were scored positive and irrelevant while 6.5% (n = 246) were scored critical and relevant. Discussion: <1% of comments indicated below average performance; >70% of comments scored irrelevant. Critical, relevant comments were least frequently observed, consistent across all 3 programs. The low rate of constructive feedback and the high rate of irrelevant comments are inadequate for a CCC to make informed decisions. The consistency of these findings across programs, specialties, and institutions suggests both local and systemic changes should be considered.
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.