ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2025
Mini-clinical examination method of dental students at Guilan University of Medical Sciences: A brief report evaluating caries diagnosis skills.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Mini-Clinical Examination (Mini-CEX) is a new student assessment method. This succinct report aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Mini-CEX in enhancing dental students' skills in caries diagnosis. This study is a brief report evaluating dental students' skills in caries diagnosis using the Mini-CEX method at Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Iran in 2022. Fifty students were randomly divided into two equal groups by using simple sampling. The Mini-CEX group underwent three sessions at 1-week intervals, while the conventional group had a single assessment session. The scoring for the assessment was as follows: 1-3 (lower than expected), 4-6 (borderline), 7-9 (as expected), and 10 (higher than expected). An independent t-test and nonparametric Mann-Whitney test were conducted to compare the effectiveness of the Mini-CEX method versus the conventional method. The level of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Significant differences were observed in three areas: determining the risk of caries (P = 0.028), detecting the speed of caries (P = 0.004), and presenting a treatment plan (P < 0.001). In addition, a significant statistical difference was noted between the third and first sessions (P < 0.001), as well as between the second and first sessions of the Mini-CEX (P = 0.001). However, no significant difference was found between the other sessions. The students' skills showed improvement during the third session of the Mini-CEX, specifically in determining the risk of caries, detecting the speed of caries, and providing a treatment plan. However, the mean skill scores in the Mini-CEX and conventional methods did not demonstrate a significant difference.
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.