ArticleCureus2026
Research Preparedness Among Osteopathic Medical Students in the Post-Pass/Fail Licensing Examination Era: Bridging the Gap Between Rising Expectations and Student Confidence.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince the transition of COMLEX Level 1 and USMLE Step 1 to pass/fail scoring, research productivity has become an increasingly important component of residency applications. National match data demonstrate increasing expectations for research experiences, abstracts, presentations, and publications across specialties. However, limited data describe how osteopathic medical students perceive their research preparedness, access to institutional research resources, and confidence in achieving competitive scholarly productivity in the post-pass/fail licensing examination era.
methodsA cross-sectional survey of osteopathic medical students assessed research preparedness, institutional support, perceived barriers, and preferred strategies to increase research involvement. Descriptive statistics and exploratory correlation analyses were performed.
resultsA total of 136 osteopathic medical students completed the survey. Respondents expressed strong interest in participating in additional research (mean Likert score, 3.65/5), yet relatively few reported confidence initiating (13.6%), writing (25.8%), or publishing (17.1%) research. Confidence across these domains demonstrated good internal consistency and was combined into a composite 'Research Confidence' score for exploratory analyses. Greater prior research experience, scholarly output, and perceived institutional support were each positively associated with Research Confidence. The most frequently reported barriers were limited knowledge of project initiation, time constraints related to course load, and limited access to specialty-specific mentors. Nearly all respondents expressed interest in structured mentorship programs, whereas substantially fewer favored formal research coursework.
conclusionsOsteopathic medical students report strong research interest but identify substantial institutional and structural barriers associated with lower perceived research preparedness and confidence. Greater research engagement and perceived institutional support were associated with higher Research Confidence, suggesting that mentorship and institutional research infrastructure may play important roles in preparing students for scholarly activity. These findings provide preliminary evidence to inform targeted institutional interventions and future multi-institutional studies examining research preparedness in the post-pass/fail licensing examination era.
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.