Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21385802›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2011

Ethnicity and academic performance in UK trained doctors and medical students: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Katherine Woolf, Henry W W Potts, I C McManus

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 123 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
123citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
15.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

123 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 294 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

63 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Katherine WoolfAcademic Centre for Medical Education, UCL Division of Medical Education, London N19 5LW, UK. k.woolf@medsch.ucl.ac.uk
Henry W W Potts
I C McManus
University College London · GBHealth Education England · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether the ethnicity of UK trained doctors and medical students is related to their academic performance.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Online databases PubMed, Scopus, and ERIC; Google and Google Scholar; personal knowledge; backwards and forwards citations; specific searches of medical education journals and medical education conference abstracts. STUDY SELECTION: The included quantitative reports measured the performance of medical students or UK trained doctors from different ethnic groups in undergraduate or postgraduate assessments. Exclusions were non-UK assessments, only non-UK trained candidates, only self reported assessment data, only dropouts or another non-academic variable, obvious sampling bias, or insufficient details of ethnicity or outcomes. Results 23 reports comparing the academic performance of medical students and doctors from different ethnic groups were included. Meta-analyses of effects from 22 reports (n = 23,742) indicated candidates of "non-white" ethnicity underperformed compared with white candidates (Cohen's d = -0.42, 95% confidence interval -0.50 to -0.34; P<0.001). Effects in the same direction and of similar magnitude were found in meta-analyses of undergraduate assessments only, postgraduate assessments only, machine marked written assessments only, practical clinical assessments only, assessments with pass/fail outcomes only, assessments with continuous outcomes only, and in a meta-analysis of white v Asian candidates only. Heterogeneity was present in all meta-analyses.

conclusionEthnic differences in academic performance are widespread across different medical schools, different types of exam, and in undergraduates and postgraduates. They have persisted for many years and cannot be dismissed as atypical or local problems. We need to recognise this as an issue that probably affects all of UK medical and higher education. More detailed information to track the problem as well as further research into its causes is required. Such actions are necessary to ensure a fair and just method of training and of assessing current and future doctors.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementEducational StatusEducation, Medical, GraduateEducation, Medical, UndergraduateHumansProspective StudiesRacial GroupsRetrospective StudiesStudents, MedicalUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID21385802
PMCPMC3050989
OpenAlexW2131200923

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.