ArticleBMC medical education2026
Evaluating a specialty-specific objective structured clinical examination and workplace-based assessment curriculum for radiation oncology postgraduate training: a prospective educational intervention study.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCompetence in radiation oncology is still commonly expected to emerge through apprenticeship, although essential tasks such as target delineation, treatment-plan review, and multidisciplinary reasoning are not reliably sampled by end-of-rotation examinations alone.
methodsWe conducted a single-center prospective educational intervention at a tertiary academic cancer center, using a historical-control comparison. 21 radiation oncology postgraduates completed the specialty-specific curriculum and were compared with 19 historical controls. The curriculum was built around 3 fixed disease modules: locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma without induction chemotherapy, middle/lower thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma managed with definitive or neoadjuvant radiotherapy, and FIGO 2018 IB3-IIIC1 cervical cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation. Each module combined contouring, structured plan review using FCB-CHOPS, MDT-style debriefing, and narrative feedback. Outcomes included OSCE, mini-CEX, multisource evaluation, FCB-CHOPS, and PHEEM.
resultsThe intervention cohort had a higher OSCE total score than historical controls (79.4 ± 6.8 vs. 76.2 ± 7.0, P = 0.021). The contouring station differed slightly between groups (P = 0.049), whereas the plan-evaluation station did not (P = 0.100). Mini-CEX overall score (P = 0.006), FCB-CHOPS (P = 0.008), and PHEEM total score (P = 0.020) all increased after the intervention, while no significant change was observed in the 360-degree overall score or the PHEEM social-support domain.
conclusionsThis curriculum was associated with modest, uneven gains in selected domains of postgraduate radiation oncology training. Its main educational value may lie in making contouring and plan review more explicit, observable, and discussable within routine clinical teaching.
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.