Cited by 460Innovations in Medical EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsStudent Assessment and Feedback

Giving feedback in clinical settings

Cantillon, P., Sargeant, J.·2008·BMJ

Abstract

Think about a clinical teaching session that you supervised recently. How much feedback did you provide? How useful do you think your feedback was?

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.a1961

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cantillon, P., & Sargeant, J.
Affiliations
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
Corresponding author
Cantillon, P.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2008-11-10
Volume
337
Issue
nov10 2
Pages
a1961-a1961
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2024060957
Cited by
460
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 16
FWCI
6.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
Keywords
feedback, clinical teaching, clinical supervision, trainee physicians, educational sessions, feedback effectiveness
MeSH terms
Education, Medical, Feedback, Interprofessional Relations, Teaching

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review