Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38738047›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Assessment in Undergraduate Competency-Based Medical Education: A Systematic Review.

Sandeep K Gupta, Tripti Srivastava

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

2 authors.

Sandeep K GuptaPharmacology, Heritage Institute of Medical Sciences, Varanasi, IND.
Tripti SrivastavaPhysiology, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies that have methodically compiled the body of research on the competency-based medical education (CBME) assessment procedure and pinpointed knowledge gaps about the structure of the assessment process are few. Thus, the goals of the study were to create a model assessment framework for competency-based medical education that would be applicable in the Indian setting as well as to thoroughly examine the competency-based medical education assessment framework.

methodsPubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were the databases that were searched. The search parameters were restricted to English language publications about competency-based education and assessment methods, which were published between January 2006 and December 2020. A descriptive overview of the included research (in tabular form) served as the foundation for the data synthesis.

resultsDatabases provided 732 records; out of which 36 fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thirty-six studies comprised a mix of randomized controlled trials, focus group interviews, and questionnaire studies, including cross-sectional studies, qualitative studies (03), mixed-method studies, etc. The papers were published in 10 different journals. The greatest number was published in BMC Medical Education (18). The average quality score for included studies was 62.53% (range: 35.71-83.33%). Most authors are from the UK (07), followed by the USA (05). The included studies were grouped into seven categories based on their dominant focus: moving away from a behavioristic approach to a constructive approach of assessment (01 studies), formative assessment (FA) and feedback (10 studies), the hurdles in the implementation of feedback (04 studies), utilization of computer or online based formative test with automated feedback (05 studies), video feedback (02 studies), e-learning platforms for formative assessment (04 studies), studies related to workplace-based assessment (WBA)/mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX)/direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) (10 studies).

conclusionsVarious constructivist techniques, such as concept maps, portfolios, and rubrics, can be used for assessments. Self-regulated learning, peer feedback, online formative assessment, an online computer-based formative test with automated feedback, the use of a computerized web-based objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) evaluation system, and the use of narrative feedback instead of numerical scores in mini-CEX are all ways to increase student involvement in the design and implementation of the formative assessment.

Indexed as

assessmentcompetency based medical educationformative assessmentsummative assessmentundergraduate medical educationworkplace based assessment

Identifiers

PMID38738047
PMCPMC11088485

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.