ArticleBMC medical education2025
The viva voce innovation and experience at a new medical school in Rwanda.
Article 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraditional preclinical viva voce examinations have faced significant criticism due to inherent biases in their format. We developed a novel format and evaluated students' views and experiences with it.
methodsThis study consists of two parts. Part 1 describes the development, implementation and refinement of the preclinical viva voce examination at the University of Global Health Equity, in Rwanda, conducted over a four-year period. Part 2 describes students' perspectives obtained through a self-administered online questionnaire.
resultsPart 1: The viva format features structured questions related to authentic clinical scenarios, that underscore the relevance of basic science knowledge to clinical practice. The examination consists of three oral stations plus one image-based station, which targets subjects that are traditionally difficult to examine like embryology, histology, and histopathology. The examination is vertically and horizontally integrated and provides students with multiple opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge. With four or more rotations of this kind, students are simultaneously examined, improving time efficiency, and reducing performance fatigue normally associated with long waiting times. Real-time scoring and commenting on individual student performances on shared files ensure examiner transparency and accountability, reducing bias. The examination ends with a faculty debrief conference, after which students receive individual feedback on their performance. Challenges encountered include examiner preferences for cases and the need for a substantial number of faculty to concurrently manage the numerous viva stations. Part 2: Students reported finding the viva format stressful but acknowledged its long-term benefits, including ability to foster mental agility, promote clinical reasoning, and improve their verbal communication skills. Compared to MCQ assessments, many students felt it was a better way of assessing knowledge, as it eliminated guesswork. Group discussions were identified as the most effective viva preparation strategy. Many students expressed a desire for more supportive interactions from examiners during the viva. Despite these challenges, there was broad agreement that the viva format should be retained.
conclusionThe novel preclinical viva format described here enhances the reliability and validity of assessment while providing formative support and early clinical integration. It represents a balanced approach to addressing traditional viva limitations while maintaining educational value.
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.