ArticleCureus2025
A Comparative Study of Student Perspectives on Online Versus In-Person Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) Teaching at a Medical School in London.
Article in Cureus, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeObjective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) are widely used in medical education to assess clinical competency through structured stations. During the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual OSCE (vOSCE) teaching became essential due to restrictions on in-person learning. This study compares medical students' perspectives on vOSCE teaching during the pandemic and in-person OSCE (iOSCE) teaching after the pandemic, assessing the role of vOSCE teaching in a postpandemic context.
methodsMedical students from University College London Medical School participated in vOSCE (2021/2022) or iOSCE (2023), using identical teaching stations. Feedback was gathered through Likert scale questionnaires, and responses were statistically analyzed to identify any significant differences between the cohorts.
resultsOne hundred thirty-one iOSCE and 115 vOSCE participants completed feedback. Students showed a clear preference for in-person teaching in areas such as time efficiency (p < 0.001), interaction with tutors and peers (p < 0.001), and future preference for teaching format (p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in terms of accessibility (p = 0.106). Free-text responses highlighted that in-person sessions were favored for improved interactivity, though some noted that sessions often overran.
conclusioniOSCE teaching was favored for better efficiency and interaction, while vOSCE teaching was valued for accessibility. A hybrid approach may be optimal depending on the specific content of the OSCE curriculum.
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.