Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42767738›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Implementation of multisource feedback for competency assessment in medical students during clinical clerkship: a scoping review protocol.

Sulistiawati Sudarso, Cicih Bhakti Purnamasari, Yoyo Suhoyo, Ova Emilia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 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

4 authors.

Sulistiawati SudarsoFaculty of Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia sulistiawati@fk.unmul.ac.id.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3462-9611
Cicih Bhakti PurnamasariFaculty of Dentistry, Mulawarman University, Samarinda, East Kalimantan, Indonesia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1485-7817
Yoyo SuhoyoDepartment of Medical Education and Bioethics, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Ova EmiliaDepartment of Medical Education and Bioethics, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionClinical clerkship is a critical transitional phase in which medical students develop core competencies through experiential learning. Workplace-based assessment, specifically multisource feedback (MSF), serves as a vital evaluative framework by triangulating perspectives from multiple stakeholders to mitigate bias. Although MSF is extensively validated and used among practising physicians and in postgraduate medical education, its application within undergraduate clinical clerkships remains underexplored. Medical students represent a distinct population with unique developmental needs, meaning that existing evidence from senior medical cohorts cannot be directly extrapolated to this context. The primary objective of this scoping review is to map the evidence on MSF implementation processes for assessing the clinical competencies of medical students during clinical clerkship while further identifying the instruments, rater types, outcomes and implementation factors reported in this setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. An initial search strategy was developed and piloted in PubMed. The comprehensive search will include MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate) and ERIC (via ProQuest), as well as Grey literature sources, including Google Scholar. All searches were conducted from database inception to 5 May 2026, and were restricted to studies published in English. All primary research designs, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods, will be eligible for inclusion in this study. Study selection and data extraction from full-text articles will be performed independently by two reviewers based on the inclusion criteria and a predetermined data extraction form. In the event of any discrepancies, these will be resolved through discussion with the third reviewer. The extracted data will be summarised and displayed in tabular or graphical form. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethical approval, as all data will be collected from the published literature. The findings will be submitted for publication to peer-reviewed journals.

Indexed as

Clinical ClerkshipClinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementFeedbackFormative FeedbackStudents, MedicalEducation, Medical, UndergraduateHumansResearch DesignScoping Reviews as TopicClinical CompetenceEducation, MedicalMEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAINING

Identifiers

PMID42767738
PMCPMC13599990

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.