ArticleInsights into imaging2025
Enhancing OSCE reliability and effectiveness in radiology resident training with long-term systemic evaluation.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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.
- Evaluation of the objective structured clinical examination in the assessment of nuclear medicine residency training.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the long-term systematic effectiveness and reliability of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in radiology resident training, from the perspectives of both examiners and examinees.
methodsThis retrospective observational study analyzed subjective evaluations and objective examination data collected over 6 years (2018-2021, 2023, and 2024). Subjective evaluations were gathered via questionnaires from 198 examiners and 818 examinees to assess the difficulty and satisfaction with the OSCE. Objective data, including examination scores, difficulty indices, and discrimination indices, for each OSCE station were analyzed using correlation analysis and t-tests.
resultsThe OSCE demonstrated stable performance over 6 years, with consistent difficulty levels and discrimination ability across all stations. The average scores for individual stations varied; however, the overall final scores remained stable. Strong correlations between the station and final scores indicate good discrimination. Examinees rated the overall difficulty higher than examiners, but the objective indices aligned with examiner assessments. Over 6 years (198 examiners, 818 examinees), OSCE scores stabilized (85.48-88.48), with improved consistency (station range narrowed to 85.51-93.9 by 2024). Difficulty (0.12-0.15) and discrimination indices remained stable (most p < 0.05). Examinees rated it harder than examiners (p < 0.001).
conclusionThe OSCE is a reliable, valid, and effective assessment tool in radiology. Evaluating the OSCE from both subjective and objective perspectives ensured the robustness and validity of the examination. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This 6-year study evaluates the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in radiology training through multidimensional analysis of examination metrics (difficulty indices and discrimination coefficients) and stakeholder feedback (n = 198 examiners, 818 examinees), demonstrating its consistency for clinical competency assessment. KEY POINTS: The radiology OSCE demonstrated consistent reliability, stable difficulty indices, and strong score correlations. Examinees overestimated exam difficulty compared to examiners, likely due to stress-related perception bias. Standardized examiner training improved scoring consistency and enhanced overall OSCE assessment quality.
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.