ArticlePerspectives on medical education2026
CORE-HPE Reporting Guidelines: Standardizing Reporting for Competency-Based Health Professions Education Outcomes Research.
Article in Perspectives on medical education, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Competency-Based Health Professions Education (CBHPE) is increasingly implemented; however, CBHPE outcomes research remains difficult to interpret and synthesize when studies incompletely report the CBHPE model and other elements. Objective: To develop structured reporting guidelines for CBHPE outcomes studies to improve transparency, interpretability, and transferability across educational contexts and professions. Methods: A multi-phase, iterative consensus-development process was used to create a CBHPE outcomes reporting checklist aligned with a CBHPE Outcomes Theory of Change. Draft reporting elements were generated and refined through structured writing-group deliberations, broad stakeholder feedback gathered through interactive town hall sessions within the ICBHPE Collaborative, and iterative revision cycles. The checklist was then pilot-tested with non-expert users to assess clarity, feasibility, and usability, and revisions were made to reduce redundancy, harmonize terminology, and strengthen guidance for high-impact reporting domains. Results: The final product is a structured reporting checklist, organized by manuscript section, accompanied by brief item descriptions and rationales, and registered with EQUATOR. The guidelines prioritize reporting elements that support causal interpretability in CBHPE outcomes research, including specification of the CBHPE intervention architecture and core components, program theory and intended mechanisms, implementation fidelity and adaptations, assessment system design and governance for progression decisions, multi-level outcomes and indicators across developmental timeframes, contextual enablers and constraints, and equity considerations. Conclusions: These CBHPE outcomes reporting recommendations provide a practical tool and guideline for authors, reviewers, and editors to strengthen the completeness and consistency of CBHPE outcomes reporting and should be considered before beginning a study. Adoption of this checklist may improve interpretability and evidence synthesis across programs and accelerate actionable learning about what works in CBHPE, for whom, in what contexts, and why.
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.