ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2025
OSVE or multiple-choice test: Is that a relevant question?
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe OSCE has been a robust tool for assessing clinical skills in medical education, adaptable across various clinical domains and stages. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, posed significant challenges to traditional assessment methods. This led to the development of the OSVE as an alternative.
objectiveThis study aimed to correlate OSVE results with MCT scores and Grade Point Average (GPA) of clerkship.
methodsThis cross-sectional study involved 129 clerkships. It compared two OSVEs and two MCTs, covering content from the 5th and 6th years of the curriculum, against final graduation grades.
resultsThe score of GPA was 8.13 ± 0.43. The authors compared OSVE-5th (7.13 ± 0.93) and OSVE-6th (7.23 ± 0.83, NS), MCT-5th (7.08 ± 0.91) vs. MCT-6th (7.68 ± 1.21, p < 0.001), OSVE-5th (7.13 ± 0.93) and MCT-5th (7.08 ± 0.91, NS), OSVE-6th (7.23 ± 0.83) and MCT-6th (7.68 ± 1.21, p < 0.001) OSVE-5th (7.13 ± 0.93) and MCT-6th (7.68 ± 1.21, p < 0.001), OSVE-6th (7.23 ± 0.83) and MCT-5th (7.08 ± 0.91, NS), OSVE-5th (7.13 ± 0.93) and GPA (8.13 ± 0.43, p < 0.001), OSVE-6th (7.23 ± 0.83) and GPA (8.13 ± 0.43, p < 0.001), MCT-5th (7.08 ± 0.91) and GPA (8.13 ± 0.43, p < 0.001), and MCT-6th (7.68 ± 1.21) and GPA (8.13 ± 0.43, p < 0.001). There were positive correlations between OSVE-5th and OSVE-6th (R = 0.418, p < 0.05), OSVE-5th and MCT-5th (R = 0.475, p < 0.05), MCT-5th, OSVE-6th and MCT-6th (R = 0,180, p < 0.05), MCT-6th (R = 0.227, p < 0.05), with OSVE-6th and MCT-5th (R = 0.478, p < 0.05), OSVE-5th and GPA (R = 0.481, p < 0.05), OSVE-6th and GPA (R = 0,439, p < 0.05), MCT-5th and GPA (R = 0.681, p < 0.05) and MCT-6th and GPA (R = 0.195, p < 0.05), no correlation was found between OSVE-6th and MCT-6th (R = 0.070, NS).
conclusionsThe correlations between the assessments revealed mild to moderate, suggesting that the assessments can be used interchangeably in the context of formative assessment. These results indicate the feasibility of using both OSVE and multiple-choice tests as effective tools to enhance intern training and monitoring.
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.