ArticleJournal of medical ethics2025
Assessing ethics and law in medical schools: there is no single best answer.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrating large language models into medical undergraduate laboratory course to enhance bioethical competence: a quasi-experimental study.Frontiers in medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical ethics and law (MEL) have a well-established place in medical curricula within the UK, but appropriately assessing MEL in a medical school context can be extremely challenging. The Institute of Medical Ethics convened a working group focused on assessment in 2021, and in this article, we present a summary of the work undertaken by this group. We start by explaining the challenges presented by the assessment of MEL, highlighting the potentially demanding requirements set out by the General Medical Council in the UK. We then explore how MEL is currently assessed in UK medical schools. We go on to consider a number of different forms of assessment and their suitability for assessing ethics and law. Finally, we report the key recommendations from the working group and conclude that we are unconvinced that current approaches to assessing MEL are sufficient to robustly assess the General Medical Council's learning outcomes.
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.