Trial reportBMC medical education2025
Comparison of A Mini-Clinical evaluation exercise with the routine logbook in assessing clinical competence of operating room trainees: A parallel randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 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
backgroundEnhancing the skills of future operating room students, who will have a crucial role in surgical procedures, necessitates the adoption of innovative training techniques. This study aimed to comparison of the mini-CEX with the routine logbook in assessing clinical competence of operating room trainees.
methodsThis research was a parallel randomized controlled trial conducted on undergraduate students in the operating room department of Khomein Faculty of Medical Sciences in Iran from June 2022 to January 2024. The participating students (60 individuals) were divided into two groups: Mini-CEX (30 individuals) and Logbook (30 individuals). Students were assessed by implementing the Logbook method in the control group and the Mini-CEX method in the intervention group. Both methods were implemented in three steps with a one-week interval. Data were analyzed by SPSS-16 using descriptive statistics, chi-square test, t-test and repeated measures ANOVA with post-hoc tests.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences in terms of gender, age, and grade point average between students in the two groups (p > 0.05). The mean scores of final assessments in the experimental group (by Mini-CEX methods) were significantly (P < 0.001) higher than the control one (Logbook method).
conclusionIt seems that applying the Mini-CEX method resulted in the improvement of clinical skills among students. Accordingly, operating room professors can improve the learning process by using direct feedback on such evaluation methods. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: not applicable.
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.