SynthesisMedical education online2026
Entrustable professional activities in medical education: strategies and results - a systematic review.
Synthesis in Medical education online, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical education has been marked in the last decades by the introduction of Competence-Based Medical Education (CBME). Despite its clear objectives, CBME has faced significant challenges and Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) have been conceptualised as an answer to some of those challenges. AIMS/PURPOSES: This systematic review aimed primarily to summarise the evidence published on the strategies used for the development, implementation, and assessment of EPAs and their results. Secondarily this review also aimed to characterise the body of evidence produced on EPAs, assess its quality, and explore its limitations and future research paths.
methodsSystematic searches were conducted in six electronic databases in July 2021 and updated in March 2025. The data extracted included the quality assessment of the studies considered using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD).
resultsFour hundred and seventy-eight studies were included for data extraction and posterior analysis, most of which referred to Postgraduate programmes (59.6%,
conclusionsThis broad systematic review highlights the increasing adoption of EPAs, showcasing the diversity of contexts and strategies for the development, implementation, and assessment of EPAs. Nevertheless, significant challenges persist, namely concerning study quality, warranting further research.
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.