ArticleMedical education online2024
Clues for improvement of research in objective structured clinical examination.
Article in Medical education online, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the objective structured clinical examination in the assessment of nuclear medicine residency training.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Preparedness and performance in pediatric assessment: linking OSCE, written exams, and training exposure in a two-year comparative study of medical students.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Advancing the assessment of clinical competence in Latin America: a scoping review of OSCE implementation and challenges in resource-limited settings.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While objective clinical structured examination (OSCE) is a worldwide recognized and effective method to assess clinical skills of undergraduate medical students, the latest Ottawa conference on the assessment of competences raised vigorous debates regarding the future and innovations of OSCE. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive view of the global research activity on OSCE over the past decades and to identify clues for its improvement. We performed a bibliometric and scientometric analysis of OSCE papers published until March 2024. We included a description of the overall scientific productivity, as well as an unsupervised analysis of the main topics and the international scientific collaborations. A total of 3,224 items were identified from the Scopus database. There was a sudden spike in publications, especially related to virtual/remote OSCE, from 2020 to 2024. We identified leading journals and countries in terms of number of publications and citations. A co-occurrence term network identified three main clusters corresponding to different topics of research in OSCE. Two connected clusters related to OSCE performance and reliability, and a third cluster on student's experience, mental health (anxiety), and perception with few connections to the two previous clusters. Finally, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada were identified as leading countries in terms of scientific publications and collaborations in an international scientific network involving other European countries (the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy) as well as Saudi Arabia and Australia, and revealed the lack of important collaboration with Asian countries. Various avenues for improving OSCE research have been identified: i) developing remote OSCE with comparative studies between live and remote OSCE and issuing international recommendations for sharing remote OSCE between universities and countries; ii) fostering international collaborative studies with the support of key collaborating countries; iii) investigating the relationships between student performance and anxiety.
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.