ArticleBMC medical education2026
A competency-based assessment system for undergraduate oral and maxillofacial surgery internship: development and pilot validation.
Article in BMC 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTraditional assessment in undergraduate oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) internships mostly relies on single-skill examinations, focusing only on technical proficiency while ignoring communication ability, clinical reasoning and medical documentation. This study aimed to develop and pilot-validate a comprehensive competency-based assessment system for undergraduate OMFS outpatient internships.
methodsThis mixed-methods development and pilot validation study identified six core clinical competency domains through literature review and semi-structured interviews with five senior OMFS faculty members. A multi-dimensional assessment framework was established, including theoretical examination, integrated clinical operation evaluation, phased skill assessment aligned with national licensing standards, patient-related indicators and daily performance evaluation. Forty-six students in the development cohort (2024-2025) adopted the new system; 48 students in the reference cohort (2023-2024) received traditional assessment. Each student was independently evaluated by three faculty members from an eleven-person rater panel. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Questionnaire feedback and adverse event data were compared between groups.
resultsSix core competency domains were finalized. Student ratings of the comprehensiveness of the two assessment systems were not significantly different (8.14 vs. 6.52, P = 0.086). Faculty ratings showed a significant difference in comprehensiveness (9.64 vs. 6.28, P = 0.043). The overall inter-rater reliability was good (ICC = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.65-0.87). Based on participant feedback, the weight of theoretical examination and patient satisfaction was reduced, and more objective indicators were added. No significant between-group differences were found in adverse event incidence.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.