ArticleCureus2024
Assessing Residents in the Department of Surgery at a Tertiary Care Centre Using Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX).
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of Mini-CEX combined with student-standardized patients in rehabilitation medicine residents' standardized training.BMC medical education · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to introduce, sensitize, and train our postgraduate students and faculty of the department of general surgery with the use of mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (mini‑CEX) and to assess the perception of students and faculty towards it. MATERIAL AND
methodsA cross‑sectional observational study was conducted over a period of four months. Ten surgery residents in the department were asked to volunteer to participate and five professors conducted the session. Five sessions of mini‑CEX (nine points) were conducted for each resident in different settings of the out‑patient department (OPD) and in‑patient department (IPD). A total of five skills were tested. Feedback from faculty and residents regarding the perception of mini‑CEX was also taken.
resultsA statistically significant difference in mean scores of all domains was observed comparing the first and last assessment (p<0.05). Hundred percent of the residents scored superior category (7-9) in the final assessment in all domains, whereas the maximum was in a satisfactory scoring grade in 1st assessment. The time taken for the assessment significantly reduced from 1st assessment to the last assessment in OPD and IPD settings (p=0.001). The mini-CEX assessment tool got 100% feedback from faculty in terms of skill improvement, method, attitude of residents, and ability to identify gaps in knowledge. However, one assessor thought that "time given for assessment" was inadequate and more effort was required than the usual traditional assessment methods. The most identified problem faced by residents was that the "time given during assessment" was less (50%); however, overall residents also found it valid, effective, and helpful in identifying knowledge gaps and improving clinical and communication skills.
conclusionMini‑CEX improves the learning environment in residency and also leads to improvement in medical interviewing skills, physical examination skills, humanistic qualities/professionalism, and counseling skills. So, it can be used for residency training in clinical departments.
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.