ArticleFuture science OA2026
Assessment of perceived objectivity of clinical evaluation methods in surgical education: an approach using a digital platform.
Article in Future science OA, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis study aimed to examine surgical trainees' perceptions of perceived objectivity across clinical competency assessment methods and to integrate these findings into the design of a digital assessment platform.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted with 154 participants (47 senior medical students, 107 residents in postgraduate years 1-3). A validated questionnaire (Cronbach's alpha = 0.81) assessed perceived objectivity for four formats: multiple-choice testing (MCQ), oral examinations, Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX), and Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, non-parametric criteria, regression models, and thematic review of open responses.
resultsMini-CEX (Median = 1.35, IQR = 1-2) and OSCE (Median = 1.51, IQR = 1-2) were rated most objective, while multiple-choice testing (MCQ) was least (Median = 2, IQR = 2-3). No significant differences were found between 6th- and 7th-year students (
conclusionsPractice-oriented assessments, particularly OSCE and Mini-CEX, were viewed as most objective. Findings support digital platforms that integrate varied, practice-based formats to ensure equitable and comprehensive evaluation of clinical competence.
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.