SynthesisNutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia2025
Assessment practices for dietetic students: An updated systematic review (2017-2024).
Synthesis in Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessment practices for dietetic students: An updated systematic review (2017-2024).Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2025Pooled it
- Nutritionists and Dietitians as Key Actors in Local Food Systems: A Systems-Based Social Network Analysis.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026Article
- Evidence-informed propositions for a whole-of-program assessment approach.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2025Article
- Preparing Graduate Dietitians for Private Practice: Analysing Publicly Available Curriculum Information From Accredited Australian Dietetic Courses.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimEvaluate assessment practices and outcomes for dietetic students and compare findings with those from a previous systematic review.
methodsA systematic review was conducted whereby four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index in Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Education Resources Information Centre) were searched on 11 October 2023 with terms related to dietetics, students, and assessment. The search was repeated on 8 January 2025 to identify new publications. Eligibility criteria were primary research published after 1 June 2017 reporting at least one assessment method for dietetic students with an assessment-related outcome. Assessment practices and outcomes were evaluated using Miller's Pyramid, the New World Kirkpatrick's Hierarchy, and the principles of programmatic assessment.
resultsFrom 5701 search results, 22 were identified, revealing new assessment practices, including entrustable professional activities, e-portfolios, and programmatic assessment, localised to Australia and Singapore. Compared to publications prior to 2017, a greater proportion conceptualised assessment as part of a system (46% compared to 28%) with a sustained higher prevalence of does and shows levels of Miller's Pyramid. Evaluation continued to focus on reaction, learning, and behaviour.
conclusionsFindings indicate a transition towards programmatic approaches to systems of assessment within dietetics, though this shift was not observed globally. Such a shift is crucial for ensuring the profession's agility in responding to modern disruptors and maintaining the delivery of high-quality education.
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.