ArticleBMC medical education2025
Comparison of the adequacies of the OSCE and vOSCE to assess the competencies required under Brazilian medical curriculum guidelines: a multicenter study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to the popularization of information and communication technology in medical education. This study aimed to compare the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) and the virtual objective structured clinical examination (vOSCE), based on expert opinion, as tools for assessing the competencies needed under medical curriculum guidelines in Brazil.
methodsIn this multicenter study, the suitability levels of the OSCE and vOSCE for assessing the competencies needed under the Brazilian National Curriculum Guidelines (DCNs) were compared. The DCNs encompass five groups of domains, namely, health education; general; health management; public health needs; and individual health needs. Sixteen teaching experts served as judges. They responded to a questionnaire with the provided Likert scores indicating the ability of the OSCE and vOSCE to assess each type of competency. Virtual meetings were held via the Delphi method and a focus group-based approach to enable the experts to reach a consensus.
resultsA total of 200 items included in the guidelines (100 for the OSCE and 100 for the vOSCE) were evaluated across a total of 3,200 responses. Analysis via the Likert scale revealed a high proportion of positive evaluations for the use of the vOSCE, with kappa values ranging from 0.4 to 0.72. The values of the absolute agreement (positive view) between examiners and equivalence with the kappa statistic for the adoption of the vOSCE ranged from 0.38 to 0.72. Via the use of virtual meetings (Delphi and focus groups), consensus was reached regarding the capacity of the OSCE and vOSCE to evaluate 97% and 92% of these items, respectively.
conclusionThe vOSCE can be employed to assess relevant competencies. However, it faces limitations regarding 8% (8/100) of the items, and some items (3%) cannot be assessed via either method. The difference in results between the two assessment methodologies (OSCE and vOSCE) is 5%. It is necessary to invest in the creation of instruments that can be used to apply the vOSCE and to conduct cost‒benefit analysis of its broader application in health education institutions. We conclude that the vOSCE is an effective tool for assessing most competencies of medical professionals and students required under Brazilian guidelines.
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.