ArticleBMC medical education2009
Comparative attainment of 5-year undergraduate and 4-year graduate entry medical students moving into foundation training.
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 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Expanding recruitment to medical school: the motivations for and perceived barriers to entry of non-science entrants to a graduate-entry medical course: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Comparison of academic performance of medical students previously and non-previously graduated from other college courses in a PBL hybrid curriculum.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Pre-service medical education course completion and drop-out rates.Human resources for health · 2022Article
- Differential attainment at MRCS according to gender, ethnicity, age and socioeconomic factors: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Relative progress and academic performance of graduate vs undergraduate entrants to an Australian medical school.BMC medical education · 2019Article
- Impact of accelerated, graduate-entry medicine courses: a comparison of profile, success, and specialty destination between graduate entrants to accelerated or standard medicine courses in UK.BMC medical education · 2018Article
- High school versus graduate entry in a Saudi medical school - is there any difference in academic performance and professionalism lapses?BMC medical education · 2016Article
- Learning strategies, study habits and social networking activity of undergraduate medical students.International journal of medical education · 2016Article
- Comparison of performance in a four year graduate entry medical programme and a traditional five/six year programme.BMC medical education · 2014Article
- Article
- Profiling strugglers in a graduate-entry medicine course at Nottingham: a retrospective case study.BMC medical education · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGraduate entry medicine is a recent innovation in UK medical training. Evidence is sparse at present as to progress and attainment on these programmes. Shared clinical rotations, between an established 5-year and a new graduate entry course, provide the opportunity to compare achievement on clinical assessments. To compare completion and attainment on clinical phase assessments between students on a 4-year graduate entry course and an established 5-year undergraduate medicine course.
methodsOverall completion rates for the 4 and 5 year courses, fails at first attempt, and scores on 14 clinical assessments, were compared between 171 graduate-entry and 450 undergraduate medical students at the University of Nottingham, comprising two graduating cohorts. Percentage assessment marks were converted to z-scores separately for each graduating year and the normalised marks then combined into a single dataset. Z-score transformed percentage marks were analysed by multivariate analysis of variance and univariate analyses of variance for each summative assessment. Numbers of fails at first attempt were analysed aggregated across all assessments initially, then separately for each assessment using chi2.
resultsCompletion rates were around 90% overall and significantly higher in the graduate entry course. Failures of assessments overall were similar, but a higher proportion of graduate entry students failed the final OSLER. Mean performance on clinical assessments showed a significant overall difference, made up of lower performance on 4 of 5 knowledge-based exams (as well as higher performance on the first exam) by the graduate entry group, but similar levels of performance on all the skills-based and attitudinal assessments.
conclusionsHigh completion rates are encouraging. The lower performance in some knowledge-based exams may reflect lower prior educational attainment, a substantially different demographic profile (age, gender), or an artefact of the first 2 years of a new graduate entry programme.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.