ArticleBMC medical education2026
Assessment methods in graduate medical education in critical care: a scoping review.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs critical care medical education advances within a competency-based framework, effective assessment strategies are essential to ensure trainees acquire the necessary skills for high-stakes situations. Despite growing interest, assessment practices remain inconsistent, with significant variations in their application, although conceptual and technological innovations support this process. This scoping review aimed to map the literature on innovation in assessment within graduate and fellowship critical care medical education.
methodsFollowing the Joanna Briggs Institute framework and PRISMA-ScR, a search of four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and LILACS) was conducted for articles published from January 2014 to June 2025.
resultsSixty-eight peer-reviewed articles were analyzed across four domains: assessment methods and tools, competency frameworks, innovation and technology, and ethics in assessment. Assessment in critical care is shifting toward a structured, multimodal, formative, and longitudinal model. Commonly used tools include workplace-based assessments and simulations. Milestones and entrustable professional activities are increasingly used to support entrustment decisions and track progress. Technology-enhanced strategies, including high-fidelity simulations, mobile apps, and artificial intelligence, improve feedback quality and real-time assessment. Ethical challenges, especially rater bias, underassessment of professionalism, and inequities, remain persistent concerns, highlighting the importance of fairness and transparency in evaluation.
conclusionsGraduate critical care assessment is advancing towards a programmatic, multidimensional model that integrates clinical and professional competencies. Emerging frameworks and digital platforms support more equitable, formative, and trustworthy evaluations. Future efforts should focus on standardization, bias, and ethical practices throughout the assessment continuum.
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.