ArticleLa Tunisie medicale2024
Article in La Tunisie medicale, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionMini Clinical Evaluation Exercise (mini-CEX) is one of the assessment tools in medical education. It includes three steps: overview of clinical situation, observation and feedback.
aimTo evaluate the feasibility of mini-CEX as a formative assessment tool for medical trainees in 5th year of medicine in a teaching intensive care unit (ICU).
methodsSingle-center qualitative research conducted in ICU during the 2nd semester of the academic year 2022-2023. Seven core clinical skill assessments were done, and the performance was rated on a 9-point scale. An assessment of the method was conducted with both trainees and clinical educators.
resultsWe conducted six mini-CEX recorded sessions. All medical students had marks under the average of 4.5. In the first period, the highest mark was obtained for counselling skills (4.5). The best score was obtained for clinical judgement (4) in the second period and for management plan (4) in the third period. Most of medical trainees (11 sur 12) were satisfied with the method and feedback was according to them the most useful step. Ten students agreed fully to introduce this assessment tool in medical educational programs. Two medical educators out of three did not practice this method before. They agreed to include mini-CEX in the program of medical education of the faculty of medicine of Tunis. However, they did not agree to use it as a summative assessment tool.
conclusionOur study demonstrates that we can use the mini-CEX in medical teaching. Both trainees and educators were satisfied with the method.
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.