ArticlePerspectives on medical education2025
Investigating the Road to Equity: A Scoping Review of Solutions to Mitigate Implicit Bias in Assessment within Medical Education.
Article in Perspectives on medical education, 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.
- Impact of faculty and resident gender on milestone evaluations in anesthesiology residency: a retrospective analysis.Medical education online · 2026Article
- Examining Differential Rater Functioning and Bias in the Holistic Review of Residency Applications.Journal of graduate medical education · 2026Article
- Reframing Validity: How Values Shape Assessment in Postgraduate Medical Education.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- CBE and the Missing 'E': Making Competency-Based Education an Equitable Framework for Global Health Professions Education.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- The Relationship Between Health Care Professionals' Intersecting Disability and Race Implicit Attitudes and Their Beliefs About People With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 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
Introduction: In medical education, assessments have high-stakes implications. Yet, assessments are rife with unconscious bias, which contributes to inequitable social structures. Implicit bias in assessment must be addressed because medical educators use assessments to guide learning and promote development of physicians' careers. In this scoping review, the authors map the literature on implicit bias in assessment, as it applies to: 1) the types of implicit bias addressed, 2) the targets and types of interventions studied or proposed, and 3) how publications describe intervention efficacy. Methods: The authors conducted a scoping review of the literature on interventions to mitigate implicit bias that was published between January 2010 and August 2023. Author pairs independently screened articles for inclusion and extracted data. Discrepancies were resolved with discussion and consensus. Qualitative and quantitative analysis was informed by Anderson et al's three assessment orientations: fairness, assessment for inclusion (AfI), and justice. Results: 7,831 articles were identified; 54 articles were included. The majority (n = 37; 69%) of articles focus on implicit bias toward those underrepresented in medicine. Interventions to mitigate implicit bias were targeted toward admissions and applications, faculty training, recruitment, summative assessments, and evaluation templates. Interventions had Discussion: This scoping review showed that more work is necessary to address different types of implicit biases, move scholarship beyond single-institution studies, refine existing interventions, and evaluate how efficacy is defined.
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.