ArticleCureus2024
The Evaluation of Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX) for Assessing Neurology Cases Among Postgraduate Medicine Students.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Application of practical training scenario simulation teaching method oriented to strengthen clinical skills in the clinical internship stage of medical students.Medical education online · 2025Trial
- The integration of clinical pathway and case-based teaching in standardized residency training in the department of endocrinology.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Traditional assessments in postgraduate medical training tend to emphasize cognitive skills while often neglecting the psychomotor and affective domains. The mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) addresses these limitations by evaluating clinical, communication, and humanistic skills with immediate feedback. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of the mini-CEX in assessing neurology cases among postgraduate internal medicine students at a medical college in North India. Methods Between March and July 2024, 10 postgraduate medicine students and 14 faculty members participated in the study. Each student completed at least four mini-CEX sessions, during which performance across seven core skills was rated using a nine-point scale. Immediate feedback was provided by faculty following each session. Both student and faculty feedback were collected to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the mini-CEX. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate these factors, while paired t-tests were applied to measure improvements in student performance. Results A total of 63 mini-CEX sessions were conducted, with an average observation time of 18.77 minutes and an average feedback time of 10.08 minutes. Significant improvements in clinical skills were observed among second-year (P = 0.04) and third-year (P = 0.01) residents, with second-year residents also showing gains in humanistic skills (P = 0.03). Student feedback was largely positive, with nine out of 10 (90%) participants expressing satisfaction and eight out of 10 (80%) recommending the continued use of the tool. Faculty feedback indicated that 10 of 14 (71.4%) supported its continued use and eight of 14 (57%) found it better than traditional assessment methods. Conclusions The mini-CEX is a feasible and acceptable formative assessment tool for neurology cases, effectively enhancing clinical and communication skills. Despite concerns regarding subjectivity, the mini-CEX shows promise for wider implementation in postgraduate, and potentially undergraduate, medical training.
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.