ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Evaluation of Structured Clinical Case Examination Versus Traditional Long Case Examination for Assessing Clinical Competence in Pediatric Patients in India: A Quasi-experimental Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
purposeDue to subjectivity, traditional long cases present challenges in assessing clinical acumen. Implementing the Objective Structured Long Examination Record to tackle these concerns presents practical challenges. These challenges lead to considering the Structured Clinical Case Examination (SCCE) as a middle ground. This article aims to answer how clinical competence assessment in pediatrics differs when using a Structured Clinical Long Case Examination rather than a Traditional Long Case Examination (TLCE).
methodsThis study was conducted at the Subbaiah Institute of Medical Sciences, Shivamogga. The study focused on 133 final-year MBBS undergraduates during their pediatric posting. Students were assessed using TLCE and SCCE by two different faculties on the same day using a validated checklist for SCCE. The students' perceptions were collected via a questionnaire. The paired sample t-test compared TLCE and SCCE scores for a comprehensive evaluation.
resultsThe paired sample t-test revealed a significant increase in marks obtained in SCCE (mean = 29.8, standard deviation, SD = 5.4) compared to TLCE (mean = 26.7, SD = 5.9) (t = 7.21, p < 0.001). Notably, 84.2% of students passed SCCE, compared to 69.9% passing TLCE. A higher proportion of students scored good (31.5%) and excellent (21.8%) marks in SCCE compared to TLCE (18.7% for good, 10.5% for excellent). Feedback from a Likert-scale questionnaire indicated strong student agreement with SCCE (χ² = 13.7, p = 0.008).
conclusionSCCE appears to be a useful structured method for assessing the clinical competency of final-year medical students, offering a more organized evaluation of diverse clinical skills. Students reported favorable perceptions of SCCE, particularly regarding clarity of expectations and inclusion of communication skills. In conclusion, SCCE's structured, observational approach has the potential to address inadequacies in clinical evaluation and enhance clinical skill learning in graduates. Further studies are needed to confirm its broader applicability and effectiveness.
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.