ReviewCritical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine2022
Too hot to handle? Assessing the validity and reliability of the College of Intensive Care Medicine "Hot Case" examination.
Review in Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine, 2022. 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.
- The reliability of the College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand "Hot Case" examination.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Too hot to handle? Assessing the validity and reliability of the College of Intensive Care Medicine "Hot Case" examination.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2022Article
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
The College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand is responsible for credentialling trainees for specialist practice in intensive care medicine for the safety of patients and the community. This involves defining trainees' performance standards and testing trainees against those standards to ensure safe practice. The second part examination performed towards the end of the training program is a high-stakes assessment. The two clinical "Hot Cases" performed in the examination have a low pass rate, with most candidates failing at least one of the cases. There is increasing expectation for medical specialist training colleges to provide fair and transparent assessment processes to enable defensible decisions regarding trainee progression. Examinations are a surrogate marker of clinical performance with advantages, disadvantages and inevitable compromises. This article evaluates the Hot Case examination using Kane's validity framework and van der Vleuten's utility equation, and identifies issues with validity and reliability which could be managed through an ongoing improvement process.
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.