ArticleMedical education online2025
Narrative comments in internal medicine clerkship evaluations: room to grow.
Article in Medical education online, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Raising the bar: Can an Online Module With a Validated Tool Improve Clerkship Evaluations?Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
- Designing an Effective Ambulatory Medicine Clerkship.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentReview
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
The use of narrative comments in medical education poses a unique challenge: comments are intended to provide formative feedback to learners while also being used for summative grades. Given student and internal medicine (IM) grading committee concerns about narrative comment quality, we offered an interactive IM Grand Rounds (GR) session aimed at improving comment quality. We undertook this study to determine the quality of comments submitted by faculty and post-graduate trainees on students' IM Clerkship clinical assessments, and to explore the potential impact of our IM-GR. Archived comments from clerkship cohorts prior to and immediately following IM-GR were reviewed. Clinical clerkship assessment comments include three sections: Medical Student Performance Assessment (MSPE), Areas of Strength, and Areas for Improvement. We adapted a previously published comment assessment tool and identified the performance domain(s) discussed, inclusion of specific examples of student performance, evidence that the comment was based on direct observations, and, when applicable, the inclusion of actionable recommendations. Scoring was based on the number of domains represented and whether an example within that domain was provided (maximum score = 10). Analysis included descriptive statistics, t-test, and Pearson correlation coefficients. We scored 697 comments. Overall, section ratings were MSPE 2.51 (SD 1.52, range 0-9), Areas of Strength 1.53 (SD 1.09, range 0-6), and Areas for Improvement 1.27 (SD 1.06, range 0-8). Significant differences were noted after Grand Rounds only in the MSPE mean scores. Within domains, trends toward increased use of specific examples in the post-GR narratives were noted. Assessment of both the breadth and depth of the included comments revealed low-quality narratives offered by our faculty and resident instructors. A focused session on best practices in writing narratives offered minimal change in the overall narrative quality, although we did notice a trend toward the inclusion of explanative examples.
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.