ArticleBMC medical education2026
The reporting outcomes in medical education (ROME) model: proposition of a new framework.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOutcomes in medical education are as complex as medical reality, ranging from individual skilled, ethical and professional development to improvement in patient care, changes in overall quality of care or changes in policy. There have been several suggestions for reporting outcome levels in medical education research, however none of which have been widely implemented,. All current models have substantial shortcomings. They lack granularity to adequately represent the complexity of medical education and care, particularly when reporting results related to patient care and health policy. Furthermore, none of the models allow for the reporting on narrative-only descriptive reports where no outcomes have yet been formally measured such as project reports.
methodsIn a modified double diamond approach, we developed a new, comprehensive model taking into account the strengths and addressing the weaknesses of prior models. The preliminary model incorporated all potential outcomes in medical education without implying a hierarchy. We sent the draft model to a group of raters for testing who discussed, revised, and reviewed it. The group of raters were experienced professionals from medical education and other fields, and represented different countries (Australia, Canada, Colombia, Germany, United States).
resultsThe raters agreed that the proposed model was easy to understand and use and had high face validity. All raters agreed on a revised model unanimously. The final comprehensive model – ROME (Reporting Outcomes in Medical Education) model – allows for reporting both narrative and quantitative outcomes in medical education literature. We developed a corresponding Excel sheet to help with the assessment of studies as well as two worked examples to illustrate its use.
conclusionThe ROME model is easy to use and at the same time comprehensively depicts all potential outcomes potentially addressed in reporting medical education research. It thus provides a classification taxonomy and describes research settings and outcomes more precisely. It serves both as a potential synthesis framework as well as a blueprint guideline for reporting outcomes. This will support researchers in medical education and their and reviewers alike. We outline potential next steps to further validate and advance our model. It will facilitate the routine reporting of outcome levels.
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.