Current Trends in Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise in Medical Education: A Bibliometric Analysis.

There has been emerging evidence supporting the mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) in various clinical specialties and settings. However, we need more clarity regarding the applicability of mini-CEX as an optimal assessment tool. Consequently, it has not been implemented on a wider scale, and several clinical specialties are yet to explore the benefits of mini-CEX. Therefore, we conducted a bibliometric analysis to investigate the publication trends of mini-CEX. We searched the Web of Science database for mini-CEX-related original and review articles. The search results were analyzed for year-wise contribution, citation trends, contributing journals, contributing institutions, countries, authors, distribution of original/review articles, retrospective/prospective/laboratory/other types of studies, specialties covered, nature of medical education (undergraduate vs. specialty trainees), and clinical settings involved in the studies (single/multiple). A total of 59 eligible articles (53 original and six review articles) were published between 1995 and 2022 in 35 different journals. The mean citations per year were 65.96 per year, and the mean citations per article per year were 2.34 citations per article per year. The articles published in and were the highest in number. In total, 97 institutes contributed to the mini-CEX-related research, mostly from the University of Bern, Switzerland. There were 238 contributing authors, with Norcini JJ contributing the most number of articles. The remaining articles were 15 retrospective studies, one developmental study, six review articles, and three laboratory-based studies. The 50 non-laboratory studies involved students/trainees in medical and allied fields. Medicine was the most frequently covered specialty. The participants were mostly specialty trainees, followed by undergraduate medical students. Multiple settings were used in 38% of the reviewed studies and single in 16%. The published articles have reduced impact and growth, as evidenced by low annual growth rates and citation trends. However, the available evidence was of reasonable quality considering the contribution from mostly prospective studies. Furthermore, it suggests considerable potential for further investigating the role of mini-CEX in clinical teaching.