ArticleThe clinical teacher2025
Impacts of the Accreditation Process for Undergraduate Medical Schools: A Scoping Review.
Article in The clinical teacher, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond intentions: a critical narrative review of accreditation's planned and emergent impact on medical schools.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2026Review
- The Changes in Students' Satisfaction Rates Between the Accreditation Cycles by the Accreditation Commission on Colleges of Medicine (ACCM).Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Two decades of accreditation in Chilean medical education: outcomes and lessons learned.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Medical education in Poland: a descriptive analysis of legislative changes broadening the range of institutions eligible to conduct medical degree programmes.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Assessment of the medical professionalism climate in the inpatient units of a teaching hospital affiliated with Iran University of Medical Sciences (2023-2024).Journal of medical ethics and history of 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study is to identify, synthesize and communicate research findings; identify research gaps; and formulate recommendations for future research regarding the impact of the accreditation process on undergraduate medical schools around the world.
methodThis scoping review followed the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The electronic search was performed up to March 2024 to identify studies that investigated the impact of the accreditation process on undergraduate medical schools. Two independent reviewers performed the selection process and extracted data from the included studies to perform a qualitative analysis.
resultsThe search identified 5148 references. After the selection process, 31 studies from 14 countries were included for data extraction. Studies highlighted five main themes: curricular and governance changes, continuous quality improvement, students' performance, school recognition and student satisfaction, and accreditation data sharing proposal. Three studies presented negative points related to accreditation process.
conclusionThe accreditation process induced both positive impacts and negative burdens for undergraduate medical schools. Continuous quality improvement is a common element identified by studies to help stakeholders ensure that accreditation improves the quality of medical education and, consequently, the health care provided. Experiences with accreditation should be shared and reported to improve the quality of medical education worldwide. Future studies must be carried out with a clear description of the domains and criteria considered during the accreditation process as well as the outcome measures used.
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.