SynthesisJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2026
Measurement properties of instruments assessing the clinical learning environment in health professions education: a COSMIN-based systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe clinical learning environment (CLE) is a crucial component of health professions education, providing the foundation for developing profession-specific clinical skills. This systematic review aimed to identify evaluated assessment tools for the CLE in health professions education and to report their measurement properties.
methodsThis systematic review was preregistered (IDESR000098), and its protocol was published previously. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed articles in English that developed and validated tools for assessing the CLE among undergraduate health professions students and followed the COSMIN guidelines for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Multiple electronic databases, including MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, ERIC, Education Research Complete, and CINAHL, were searched; studies were independently screened, and data were extracted. Data were synthesized using best-evidence synthesis according to COSMIN guidelines.
resultsOf the 6,236 articles included in title and abstract screening, 55 were eligible for full-text screening. A supplementary search identified 13 additional articles, resulting in 40 included articles. Overall, 28 tools were identified, with 4 tools (PET, PET-Midwifery, DECLEI, and MidSTEP) demonstrating sufficient content validity. Only MidSTEP demonstrated sufficient structural validity.
conclusionOnly a minority of the included tools provided sufficient evidence of content and structural validity according to the COSMIN criteria. This finding indicates a systemic need for higher standards in monitoring clinical placements and identifies tools that should be re-evaluated and supported by additional research. Limitations include the exclusion of EMBASE and gray literature and the reliance on studies that predominantly used psychometric-first rather than content-validity-first designs.
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.