ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Evaluation of the objective structured clinical examination in the assessment of nuclear medicine residency training.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe evaluated the capacity of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) to certify resident competency in nuclear medicine (NM). MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on the OSCE scores of residents who participated in the examination for the certification of NM physicians in Beijing from 2019 to 2024, with a focus on difficulty, discrimination, reliability, and validity.
resultsThe OSCE is comprised of six stations, including high-radioactivity room operations, imaging room operations, PET/CT case analysis, SPECT/CT case analysis, patient interviews and report writing. The mean total OSCE scores (mean ± SD) were 88.58 ± 2.37 points (2019), 89.13 ± 2.72 points (2020), 86.15 ± 2.75 points (2021), 92.96 ± 2.31 points (2022), 91.11 ± 1.37 points (2023), and 89.08 ± 2.75 points (2024), respectively. The overall difficulty coefficients of the OSCE were 0.89, 0.89, 0.86, 0.88, 0.91, and 0.89, respectively. The internal consistency reliability values (Cronbach's α) were 0.66, 0.76, 0.57, 0.28, 0.05, and 0.69, respectively, across the years. The station-level discrimination indices ranged from 0.46 to 0.83. Among the 30 stations that were double-scored by two examiners, 73.33% (22/30) of the stations demonstrated excellent interrater consistency.
conclusionThe OSCE effectively simulates clinical environments and provides a comprehensive assessment of the clinical competence of NM residents. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This study conducted a multidimensional evaluation of 6-year OSCE data, focusing on difficulty, discrimination, reliability, and validity, demonstrating its effectiveness in simulating clinical environments and assessing the clinical competence of NM residents. KEY POINTS: Compared to the numerous studies on medical students, relatively few studies on the OSCE target NM residents. The OSCE exhibited acceptable station difficulty and discrimination, moderate reliability, and satisfactory content validity for assessing NM residents.
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.