SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON ASSESSMENT, FEEDBACK AND PHYSICIANS’ CLINICAL PERFORMANCE: BEME GUIDE NO. 7

The function of the reviewer is to review, select, mull through, inwardly digest and comment on what they think. It is a personal view. My personal view. Sometimes reviews are spectacularly wrong (Bach was third choice for Kappelmeister at St Tomaskirche, Leipzig – they wanted Telemann; there was a riot when the ‘Rite of Spring’ was premiered). Sometimes they are accurate, and sometimes not quite. The purpose of these pages is to celebrate what is good, and to stimulate a response. I sometimes think that the reviewer’s role is parasitical, and the critic is often considered to be at the lower end of the academic food chain. However, it is a generally good bunch this time round.

Each article is graded from 1–5

IMPORTANCE: ★ (very marginal) to ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ (essential reading)

EASE OF READING: ☻ (impenetrable) to ☻ ☻ ☻ ☻ ☻ (very clear)