ArticleAcademic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges2025
Does Knowledge of Clinical Case Outcome Influence Supervisor Evaluation of Resident Clinical Reasoning?
Article in Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeThis study examines whether outcome bias affects the assessment of general practice (GP) residents and explores supervisor feedback characteristics.
methodIn a within-subjects experiment conducted in June 2023, Erasmus Medical Center GP supervisors reviewed 6 clinical vignettes with ambiguous diagnoses assessing residents' diagnostic decisions. Each vignette had 2 versions, differing only in the final sentence indicating favorable or adverse clinical outcome. Supervisors were randomly assigned to review half the vignettes with favorable clinical outcomes and half with adverse clinical outcomes. Supervisors provided scores (range of 1-10, with 10 indicating exceptional achievement and 1-5 indicating insufficient performance) and feedback, analyzed for valence, content specificity, process versus outcome focus, and politeness strategies.
resultsSixty-two supervisors participated in the study. Vignettes ending in adverse clinical outcomes received lower scores versus those ending in favorable clinical outcomes (mean [SE] scores, 5.25 [0.12] vs 6.26 [0.16]; P < .001) and prompted more negative feedback (mean [SE] negative idea units, 2.35 [0.11] vs 1.80 [0.09]; P < .001). Negative feedback exhibited greater specificity than positive feedback (mean [SE] proportion of specific idea units, 0.88 [0.02] vs 0.44 [0.03]; P < .001), regardless of clinical outcome. Most feedback addressed process-related aspects (grand mean proportion of process-related idea units, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98). Polite language was more prevalent in negative versus positive feedback (mean [SE] proportion of feedback with politeness strategies, 0.50 [0.04] vs 0.15 [0.02]; P < .001), regardless of clinical outcome.
conclusionsThe study identified outcome bias in the evaluation of GP residents, with adverse clinical outcomes leading to lower scores and more negative, specific, process-focused feedback. Although such feedback can enhance learning, it may also hinder learning by triggering negative emotions. The findings emphasize the educational value of diagnostic errors but stress the need for objective assessment strategies to optimize learning opportunities.
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.