Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39148109›Full record

ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2024

'Having skin in the game': guiding principles for incorporating moulage into OSCEs.

Bilal Korimbocus, Helen Wilson, Aine McGuckin, Gerard J Gormley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Bilal KorimbocusNorthern Ireland Medical and Dental Agency, Belfast, UK.
Helen WilsonCentre for Medical Education, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Aine McGuckinSchool of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Gerard J GormleySimulation, InterSim's University Belfast, Belfast, Queen, UK. g.gormley@qub.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1701-7920

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDermatological conditions are a common reason for patients to seek healthcare advice. However, they are often under-represented in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs). Given the visual nature of skin conditions, simulation is suited to recreate such skin conditions in assessments such as OSCEs. One such technique often used in simulation is moulage-the art and science of using special effects make-up techniques to replicate a wide range of conditions on Simulated Participants or manikins. However, the contextual nature of OSCEs places additional challenges compared to using moulage in more general forms of simulated-based education. MAIN BODY: OSCEs are high-stakes assessments and require standardisation across multiple OSCE circuits. In addition, OSCEs tend to have large numbers of candidates, so moulage needs to be durable in this context. Given the need to expand the use of moulage in OSCE stations and the unique challenges that occur in OSCEs, there is a requirement to have guiding principles to inform their use and development.

conclusionInformed by evidence, and grounded in experience, this article aims to provide practical tips for health profession education faculty on how best to optimise the use of moulage in OSCEs. We will describe the process of designing an OSCE station, with a focus on including moulage. Secondly, we will provide a series of important practice points to use moulage in OSCEs-and encourage readers to integrate them into their day-to-day practice.

Indexed as

DermatologyMoulageOSCESimulation

Identifiers

PMID39148109
PMCPMC11325563

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.