Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Script concordance tests production optimization using enhanced interactive training: randomized, single-blind, bicentric trial.
Trial report 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
backgroundThe Script Concordance Test (SCT) is an effective tool for clinical reasoning assessment. However, many faculty members are still unfamiliar with this modality, and there are challenges in recruiting panelists who are mandatory for the assessment of SCT. The aim of this study was to assess the benefits of providing training in the quality of SCTs produced by junior faculties members.
methodsThis was a randomized, single-blind, two-centre trial. The intervention consisted of 2 h of interactive training. The primary outcome was a comparison of the percentage of post-intervention valid SCT between the trained and the control group. The secondary outcome was to determine the factors associated with the quality of SCT.
resultsIn two medical schools in the Paris area, 115 participants were recruited in February 2024; they produced 460 SCT. Nine panels of experts were assembled. The percentage of post-intervention valid SCTs was significantly higher in the trained group (41% versus 16%, p < 0.001). This was confirmed in a sensitivity analysis performed on all the SCTs, adjusted for unbalanced variables between the two randomization arms ("risk" of producing a valid SCT when the participants were in the trained arm: aOR 2.53 [1.57; 4.13], p < 0.001).
conclusionOur prospective randomized study suggested the significant benefits for inexperienced physicians of an initial training in SCT writing quality.
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.