ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2025
Anonymous versus Open Evaluative Feedback in US Academic Medical Institutions: Pros and Cons.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evolution of the Departmental Chair in US Academic Medical Institutions: A Descriptive Appraisal.Journal of healthcare leadership · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evaluative feedback and associated processes are critical for a US Academic Medical Institution (AMI) in fulfilling its vital missions of clinical service, teaching, training, mentoring, research, scholarship, community engagement, and innovation. AMIs utilize myriad anonymous (evaluator, receiver, or both) and non-anonymous ("open") evaluative methodologies in these domains in a journey of continuous learning and improvement. Such appraisals enhance systems and processes and provide determinative data in alignment with organizational mission, vision, values, and strategic goals. This literature-based descriptive treatise explores the nuances, benefits, and disadvantages of anonymous versus open feedback in AMIs in the context of augmenting the overall performance of systems and its stakeholders. It further explicates the critical role of the organizational cultural milieu, and its foundational core embedded in trust, meritocracy, transparency, fairness, empathetic and dialogic communication, shared responsibility, and collaborative goal setting. These core elements are critical in nurturing a collective problem-solving mindset in conjunction with key facets of professionalism with resolute support of the AMI's administrative leadership toward embracing open feedback systems.
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.