ArticleBMC medical education2026
Bridging competency gaps: developing entrustable professional activities for undergraduate oral and maxillofacial surgery training.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A competency-based assessment system for undergraduate oral and maxillofacial surgery internship: development and pilot validation.BMC medical education · 2026Article
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
backgroundEntrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) translate competency domains into observable clinical tasks and support workplace-based assessment in undergraduate Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMFS). This study aimed to develop a context-specific set of OMFS EPAs for final-year BDS students and evaluate their quality and reliability using the Queen’s EQual rubric.
methodsA consensus-generating mixed-methods design was employed using a purposive expert panel (n = 10). The Nominal Group Technique was used to generate and prioritise EPAs, followed by structured rating on a 5-point Likert scale and iterative refinement. EPA quality was evaluated using the 14-item EQual rubric. Analyses included descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alpha, generalizability theory (phi coefficient), and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
resultsTen experts (60% male; five specialists, four general dentists, and one medical educationist) completed all study phases. Ten EPAs were developed. The highest consensus (9/10) was achieved for history-taking, diagnostic testing and imaging, informed consent, and non-surgical care, whereas lower consensus was observed for preventive and follow-up care (3/10) and orofacial pain and anxiety management (4/10). Most EPAs (8/10) were judged by a majority as not requiring revision; however, the EPAs addressing orofacial pain and anxiety management and preventive and follow-up care were most frequently identified for refinement (n ≥ 6; mean ratings 3.60 and 3.40, respectively). All EPAs exceeded the predefined EQual cut score (4.07), with overall mean scores ranging from 4.26 to 4.41 (SD 0.16–0.23) and high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89). Reliability evidence indicated excellent dependability (phi = 0.987 for specialists; 0.888 for general dentists) and strong inter-rater agreement (ICC = 0.969 [95% CI 0.914–0.996] for specialists; 0.964 [0.900–0.996] for general dentists; p < 0.001).
conclusionsA 10-item EPA framework for undergraduate OMFS demonstrated acceptable structural quality and strong reliability. Refinement priorities were identified for EPAs related to preventive and follow-up care and orofacial pain and anxiety management. This framework provides a structured basis for workplace-based assessment and curriculum alignment in undergraduate OMFS training.
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.