SynthesisPloS one2026
Structured approaches to improving outcomes of oral exam in medical and paramedical education: A systematic review and evidence-based framework.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOral examinations are central to medical and paramedical education for assessing reasoning, communication, and professional competencies, but remain challenged by issues of reliability, bias, and standardization. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on issues, requirements, and solutions to optimize oral exam outcomes in these fields. MATERIALS AND
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted across 14 databases (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) up to June 23, 2025, using PICO-framed queries focused on medical and paramedical students. Inclusion criteria encompassed English-language full text studies on oral assessments; exclusions included editorials and reviews. Three independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, extracting data on study characteristics, challenges, requirements, solutions, and outcomes. Quality appraisal utilized QUADAS, with thematic analysis and matrix patterns to identify correlations.
resultsFrom 25,594 records, 102 studies were included after deduplication and screening. The number of publications increased substantially after 2000, with the majority originating from the field of medicine (70.6%) and primarily addressing undergraduate (44.1%) and postgraduate (37.3%) education. Structured oral examinations (SOEs) dominated (56.9%), outperforming traditional formats in reliability (median Cronbach's alpha 0.75; inter-rater interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.47-0.82) and validity (modest correlations with objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs), r=0.10-0.74). Key challenges included examiner variability (66.7%), student anxiety (41.2%), and logistical constraints (34.3%). The important requirements included assessment design, examiner calibration, technological integration, and equity. Solutions were emphasized on training (60.8%), standardization (56.9%), and technology (27.5%), yielding improved pass rates (50-100%) and satisfaction (72-96%). A comprehensive framework recommends multi-station objective structured viva examinations (OSVEs), hybrid delivery, combined rubrics, and artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted scoring for optimization. Limitations included generalizability (91.3%) and small samples (49.5%).
conclusionsThis review outlines key challenges and strategies to improve the quality of oral examinations. Standardized oral examinations, supported by technology, offer fair and reliable assessments. The findings provide a framework for educators and researchers to optimize their use, while future studies should validate predictive validity and explore AI-driven solutions to reduce bias and enhance scalability.
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.