ArticleBMC nursing2026
Core clinical competency indicators for master of nursing specialist (anaesthesia) students in China: a delphi study.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompetency training is essential for cultivating qualified anaesthesia Master of Nursing Specialist (MNS) graduates. Although a previous study has established relevant competency dimensions for anaesthesia nursing, no refined framework with operationalized indicators is currently available for Chinese MNS anaesthesia students.
objectiveTo construct an index system for the core clinical competencies of MNS anaesthesia students.
methodsFollowing literature screening, 26 eligible publications were selected to draft preliminary indicators. Semi-structured interviews with 15 participants were performed, and interview data were analysed via thematic coding.21 experts from 11 regions across China completed two rounds of Delphi surveys. Indicators were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, with expert consensus determined by predefined statistical cut-offs (mean importance score ≥ 3.5, coefficient of variation (CV) ≤ 0.25, ≥ 75% ratings ≥ 4) combined with comprehensive expert revision opinions.
resultsThe response rates of the two Delphi rounds were 100% and 95.24%, respectively. The expert authority coefficients (Cr) were 0.95 and 0.96, indicating high reliability of the consultation results. In the second round, Kendall's concordance coefficients (W) for the first, second, and third-level indicators were 0.552 (strong consensus), 0.324 (moderate consensus), and 0.254 (weak-moderate consensus) respectively (P < 0.01), which indicated that the consistency of expert opinions was statistically significant and the consultation results were valid. The range of coefficient of variation was from 0.05 to 0.25. The final indicator system included 8 first-level indicators, 39 s-level indicators, and 109 third-level indicators.
conclusionCore clinical competency indicators for MNS anaesthesia students, established in this study, achieved expert consensus validity. These competency indicators can serve as a theoretical reference for the future training and assessment of MNS postgraduates in this field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42458437What 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.