ArticleCureus2026
Evaluating the Informed Consent Objective Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE) Using a Minimum Standard Assessment Tool During the Transition-to-Residency Program.
Article in Cureus, 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
objectiveTo evaluate the feasibility and descriptive performance of a modified minimum-standard informed consent (IC) assessment tool when implemented during a transition-to-residency IC objective structured clinical exam (OSCE). STUDY SETTING AND
designWe conducted a single-center retrospective cohort analysis of IC OSCE recordings from fourth-year medical students enrolled in a transition-to-residency course in Academic Year (AY) 2023 and AY2024. Facilitators scored recordings using a modified Spatz minimum-standard tool. Minimum standard was considered addressing either quantitative or qualitative risk in addition to the domains of "What," "Why," "How," "Benefits," "Alternatives," and "Timeframe." Each domain was worth one point for a total minimum standard score of seven. Data sources and analytic sample: Primary data was collected during March/April 2023 (AY2023) and March/April 2024 (AY2024) using the modified Spatz assessment tool completed by facilitators while watching IC OSCE recordings. PRINCIPAL
findingsIn 2023 and 2024, 158 (98.75%) and 155 (96.87%) OSCEs were graded, respectively. A greater proportion of AY2024 students met the minimum standard compared with AY2023 students (87.1% vs 51.9%, p < 0.001). Higher AY2024 domain-level performance was observed for "Alternatives" and "Timeframe" as well as in "Quantitative Risk." A high proportion of students met expectations on the "What," "Why," "How," and "Benefits" sections in both years. Students in specialty subgroups with procedural predominance maintained high performance. Non-procedural specialty students improved significantly from AY2023 to AY2024.
conclusionsThe modified Spatz assessment tool was feasible to implement in a transition-to-residency IC OSCE and identified specific consent-content domains in which students did and did not meet a minimum standard.
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.