↓ Skip to main content

The utility of mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (mini-CEX) in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education: protocol for a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The utility of mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (mini-CEX) in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education: protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0539-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara Mortaz Hejri, Mohammad Jalili, Mandana Shirazi, Rasoul Masoomi, Saharnaz Nedjat, John Norcini

Abstract

One of the most frequently used assessment tools that measure the trainees' performance in workplace is the mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (mini-CEX), in which an expert observes and rates the actual performance of trainees. Several primary studies have evaluated the effectiveness of mini-CEX by assessing its educational and psychometric properties. The objective of this BEME review is to explore, analyze, and synthesize the evidence considering the utility of the mini-CEX for assessing undergraduate and postgraduate medical trainees. Studies reporting on mini-CEX performed in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education and providing some empirical data for mini-CEX in relation to one or more of the validity, reliability, educational impact, acceptability, and cost of mini-CEX will be included in the review. No restrictions on study design or publication date or language will be handled. To ensure comprehensiveness of our search, we will use different approaches and methods. In addition to electronic search in bibliographic databases, we will conduct forward and backward searching. We will also contact leading authors in the field of mini-CEX and will search for the gray literature. Data extractions will be done independently by two coders based on a form. If there is any discordance, a third author will resolve it. The quality assessment will be also done independently by two team members, based on critical appraisal checklists. In attempting to answer our original research questions, we will use meta-analysis or meta-synthesis. The findings of this study can be transferred to the medical education stakeholders such as administrators of medical schools, residency program directors, and faculty members. We also hope that publication of this review will encourage stakeholders who have already adopted the mini-CEX to evaluate and report its different characteristics. Lastly, we expect that we can identify gap of knowledge in this field and suggest areas for future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 158 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Postgraduate 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Other 13 8%
Professor 9 6%
Other 37 23%
Unknown 44 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 47 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2021.
All research outputs
#5,013,954
of 23,980,099 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#976
of 2,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,125
of 317,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#29
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,980,099 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,077 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,356 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.