SynthesisBMC medical education2026
Rubric use in dental education: a systematic review of design, implementation, and educational impact.
Synthesis 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.
- Validity and Reliability of Rubrics for Assessment of Preclinical Orthodontic Practices in Dental Students.Dentistry journal · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis systematic review seeks to explore the implementation and impact of rubrics in dental education, both for clinical and theoretical courses at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, and from both student and teacher perspectives.
methodsSystematic searches in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were conducted up to April 2025, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Studies were included if they involved undergraduate or postgraduate dental students and reported either the application of a rubric system regarding assessment, teaching or feedback. Study design, rubric type, context of assessment, validity/reliability, perceptions and educational outcomes were extracted.
resultsTwenty-three studies that have been published between 2013 and 2025 have been included in the review. Most were undergraduate program studies and used an analytic rubric approach (20/23). Rubrics were used in formative (n = 9), summative (n = 8), or both formative and summative settings (n = 6). Evidence indicates that rubrics did help enhance grading consistency and inter-rater reliability, faculty/learner calibration, and student self-regulation. Teachers and students generally viewed rubrics positively and reported that rubrics created clearer expectations and more useful feedback. Challenges reported were time-consuming development, unreliable validation, insufficient standardization, and overestimation by students in self-assessment.
conclusionRubrics enhance objectivity, the quality of feedback, and transparency in dental education. The evidence is of moderate certainty, primarily due to the predominance of single-institution study designs. While this represents strength in terms of local adaptability, the limited cross-institutional validation restricts generalizability. Future research should focus on refining institution-specific rubrics through structured calibration training and rigorous psychometric evaluation, alongside complementary multi-institutional studies to strengthen external validity.
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.