Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42583048›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026

When assessment alignment masks generalizability: a methodological cautionary tale from an OBE pilot in nephrology.

Qi-Shun Wu, Lin Wang, Gui-Rui Sang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Qi-Shun WuSecond Affiliated Hospital of Wannan Medical University, Wuhu, Anhui, China.
Lin WangAffiliated Fourth Hospital of Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu, China.
Gui-Rui SangSecond Affiliated Hospital of Wannan Medical University, Wuhu, Anhui, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Research competency is increasingly recognized as essential for medical graduates, yet rigorous evaluation of educational interventions remains uncommon. Outcome-based education (OBE) aligns teaching activities with predefined competencies, but its application to research competency development in specialized clinical rotations is underexplored. Methods: This methodological reflection draws on a feasibility pilot evaluating an OBE research-integrated teaching model in nephrology. A mixed-methods quasi-experimental design was employed, combining quantitative outcome data with qualitative feedback within a within-instructor counterbalanced framework. Eight instructors taught 126 fifth-year medical students across two consecutive 4-week blocks, with model crossover and no washout period. The primary outcome was a comprehensive examination (100-point scale); secondary outcomes included self-rated research competency, capstone proposal ratings, and platform usability. Results: Near-transfer assessment scores were higher in the OBE condition (mean difference 5.6 points, 95% CI 3.1-8.1, Discussion: The statistically significant differences reflect near-transfer performance on examination tasks structurally aligned with training activities, not generalizable competency acquisition. The design failed to deliver credible evidence due to four fatal flaws: (1) assessment-task alignment between the research design subscale and OBE micro-projects; (2) absence of graduated transfer assessment; (3) insufficient instructor sample (

Indexed as

assessment alignment biascounterbalanced designfar-transfer assessmentmedical education researchnear-transfer assessmentoutcome-based educationresearch competencyvalidity threat

Identifiers

PMID42583048
PMCPMC13458752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.