ArticleBMC medical education2024
Construction of the medical virtual teaching and research office evaluation system in China based on the context, input, process, product model: a Delphi study.
Article in BMC medical education, 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.
- A competency-based framework for preventing blood-borne pathogen occupational exposures in medical students: literature review and Delphi study.BMC medical education · 2025Review
- Establishment and validation of an evaluation system for hospital infection prevention and control courses: a study protocol using the Delphi method and analytic hierarchy process.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Construction of a management protocol for high-risk neurogenic bladder in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: a Delphi study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs new-formed basic-level teaching organizations, medical virtual teaching and research offices (VTROs) have been established in China since 2021. There still a lack of a comprehensive standard for them. The aim of this study was to construct a comprehensive system for evaluation of the medical VTROs.
methodsThe authors developed an initial draft of the VTROs evaluation system, based on the context, input, process, product model and a literature review. A total of 19 experts were invited to provide supportive advice and modification suggestions on the evaluation system in two Delphi rounds, and calculated coefficient value, consistency ratio, and weight for each first-, second-, and third-level indices.
resultsThe CIPP model-based evaluation system developed included the subject and course categories. The subject category had 4 first-level indices, 14 s-level indices, and 46 third-level indices, while the course category had 4 first-level indices, 13 s-level indices, and 49 third-level indices. The recovery rates for two rounds were 94.7% and 89.5%. Coefficient value for the two subscales ranged from 0.097 to 0.207 in the second round, while weighted quality index values were established at all levels, with a consistency ratio < 0.1.
conclusionsThe VTROs evaluation system is CIPP-oriented, comprehensive, and reliable. It can serve a guide for construction, implementation, and evaluation of VTROs in medical field.
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.