ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2024
A retrospective feedback analysis of objective structured clinical examination performance of undergraduate medical students.
Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 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.
- 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
- A retrospective feedback analysis of objective structured clinical examination performance of undergraduate medical students.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2024Article
- Leveraging Provocative Design Methods to Address Implicit Bias in Clinical Interactions through Technology.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Feedback is an essential component of medical education, enhancing the quality of students' knowledge and skills. However, providing effective feedback, particularly in clinical skills assessments like Objective Structured Clinical Examinations [OSCEs], often poses challenges. This study aimed to evaluate the content of OSCE feedback given to undergraduate medical students over five years. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 1034 anonymised medical students' OSCE performance was conducted, focusing on written feedback. The written feedback data were randomly selected from OSCE sessions, collected from university assessment records and anonymised for ethical considerations. R software was used to identify the most frequently repeated words in the examiners' feedback text, and word cloud charts were created to visualise the responses. Results: Word clouds generated from the top 200 most frequently used terms provided visual insights into common descriptive words in feedback comments. The most frequently repeated word over five years was "good," indicative of potentially non-specific feedback. Discussion: The high frequency of non-specific terms like "good" suggests a need for more specific, constructive feedback. However, such generic terms can offer some positive reinforcement, more than they may be needed to foster significant improvement. As previously proposed in the literature, adopting structured feedback forms may facilitate the delivery of more specific, actionable feedback. Conclusion: This study emphasises the importance of providing specific, actionable feedback in medical education to facilitate meaningful student development. As medical education continues to evolve, refining feedback processes is crucial for effectively guiding students' growth and skill enhancement. Using structured feedback forms can be a beneficial strategy for improving feedback quality.
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.