Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19563655›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2009

An evaluation of the performance in the UK Royal College of Anaesthetists primary examination by UK medical school and gender.

Andrew R Bowhay, Simon D Watmough

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Andrew R BowhayCentre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, School Of Medical Education, The University of Liverpool, Cedar House, Ashton Street, Liverpool, L69 3GE, UK. bowhay@liv.ac.uk
Simon D Watmough

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been comparatively little consideration of the impact that the changes to undergraduate curricula might have on postgraduate academic performance. This study compares the performance of graduates by UK medical school and gender in the Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) section of the first part of the Fellowship of the Royal College of Anaesthetists (FRCA) examination.

methodsData from each sitting of the MCQ section of the primary FRCA examination from June 1999 to May 2008 were analysed for performance by medical school and gender.

resultsThere were 4983 attempts at the MCQ part of the examination by 3303 graduates from the 19 United Kingdom medical schools. Using the standardised overall mark minus the pass mark graduates from five medical schools performed significantly better than the mean for the group and five schools performed significantly worse than the mean for the group. Males performed significantly better than females in all aspects of the MCQ - physiology, mean difference = 3.0% (95% CI 2.3, 3.7), p < 0.001; pharmacology, mean difference = 1.7% (95% CI 1.0, 2.3), p < 0.001; physics with clinical measurement, mean difference = 3.5% (95% CI 2.8, 4.1), p < 0.001; overall mark, mean difference = 2.7% (95% CI 2.1, 3.3), p < 0.001; and standardised overall mark minus the pass mark, mean difference = 2.5% (95% CI 1.9, 3.1), p < 0.001. Graduates from three medical schools that have undergone the change from Traditional to Problem Based Learning curricula did not show any change in performance in any aspects of the MCQ pre and post curriculum change.

conclusionGraduates from each of the medical schools in the UK do show differences in performance in the MCQ section of the primary FRCA, but significant curriculum change does not lead to deterioration in post graduate examination performance. Whilst females now outnumber males taking the MCQ, they are not performing as well as the males.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementAnesthesiologyClinical CompetenceConfidence IntervalsCurriculumEducational StatusEducation, Medical, GraduateFemaleHumansMaleSchools, MedicalSex FactorsStatistics as TopicUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID19563655
PMCPMC2707380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.