ArticleBMC medical education2024
A novel resident physician examination using clinical simulation video to assess clinical competence in Japan: a cross-sectional 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. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe general medicine in-training examination (GM-ITE) assesses physicians' clinical knowledge. This study expanded on findings from a previous pilot study to assess the relationship between general medicine in-training examination (GM-ITE) scores and the diagnostic skills of resident physicians in Japan by employing an innovative clinical simulation video (CSV-IE).
methodsThis multicenter cross-sectional study included 4,677 resident physicians who took the GMITE between January 17 and 30, 2023. Participants watched the CSV-IE, depicting an emergency room scenario, and provided a diagnosis. The CSV-IE depicts an emergency case and provides a diagnosis. Discrimination indices were used to assess the CSV-IE's effectiveness across clinical competence domains, and multilevel logistic regression was used to analyze physician- and hospital-level factors associated with correct diagnoses.
resultsCorrect diagnoses were provided by 470 participants (10.0%). The CSV-IE demonstrated high discriminatory power across all assessed domains, including basic clinical knowledge (DI = 0.44), symptomatology and clinical reasoning (DI = 0.31), physical examination and clinical procedure (DI = 0.35), and knowledge about the disease (DI = 0.25), supporting its utility as an effective assessment tool. In the multivariable analysis, factors associated with a higher likelihood of providing a correct CSV-IE diagnosis included a higher annual number of emergency outpatients (adjusted odds ratio: 1.025; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.003-1.047; P = .0230) and being in a higher postgraduate year (adjusted odds ratio: 1.387; 95% CI: 1.104-1.742; P = .005). Conversely, resident physicians at university hospitals were less likely to provide a correct CSV-IE response (adjusted odds ratio: 0.624; 95% CI: 0.435-0.896; P = .0107).
conclusionsCSV-IE modules may provide an integrative and realistic evaluation of clinical competence, addressing limitations of traditional MCQ-based assessments by offering contextualized, real-world scenarios that require dynamic decision-making and diagnostic reasoning.
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.