Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25592199›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2015

Cross-comparison of MRCGP & MRCP(UK) in a database linkage study of 2,284 candidates taking both examinations: assessment of validity and differential performance by ethnicity.

Richard Wakeford, MeiLing Denney, Katarzyna Ludka-Stempien, Jane Dacre, I C McManus

Abstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 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. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. There is a Place for Passion.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2017
    Article
  20. Observational
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

5 authors.

Richard WakefordHughes Hall, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB1 2EW, UK. rew5@cam.ac.uk.
MeiLing DenneyRoyal College of General Practitioners, 30 Euston Square, London, NW1 2ED, UK. mldenney@btinternet.com.
Katarzyna Ludka-StempienUCL Medical School, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK. katarzyna.ludka.10@ucl.ac.uk.
Jane DacreUCL Medical School, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK. j.dacre@ucl.ac.uk.
I C McManusUCL Medical School, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK. i.mcmanus@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMRCGP and MRCP(UK) are the main entry qualifications for UK doctors entering general [family] practice or hospital [internal] medicine. The performance of MRCP(UK) candidates who subsequently take MRCGP allows validation of each assessment. In the UK, underperformance of ethnic minority doctors taking MRCGP has had a high political profile, with a Judicial Review in the High Court in April 2014 for alleged racial discrimination. Although the legal challenge was dismissed, substantial performance differences between white and BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) doctors undoubtedly exist. Understanding ethnic differences can be helped by comparing the performance of doctors who take both MRCGP and MRCP(UK).

methodsWe identified 2,284 candidates who had taken one or more parts of both assessments, MRCP(UK) typically being taken 3.7 years before MRCGP. We analyzed performance on knowledge-based MCQs (MRCP(UK) Parts 1 and 2 and MRCGP Applied Knowledge Test (AKT)) and clinical examinations (MRCGP Clinical Skills Assessment (CSA) and MRCP(UK) Practical Assessment of Clinical Skills (PACES)).

resultsCorrelations between MRCGP and MRCP(UK) were high, disattenuated correlations for MRCGP AKT with MRCP(UK) Parts 1 and 2 being 0.748 and 0.698, and for CSA and PACES being 0.636. BME candidates performed less well on all five assessments (P < .001). Correlations disaggregated by ethnicity were complex, MRCGP AKT showing similar correlations with Part1/Part2/PACES in White and BME candidates, but CSA showing stronger correlations with Part1/Part2/PACES in BME candidates than in White candidates. CSA changed its scoring method during the study; multiple regression showed the newer CSA was better predicted by PACES than the previous CSA.

conclusionsHigh correlations between MRCGP and MRCP(UK) support the validity of each, suggesting they assess knowledge cognate to both assessments. Detailed analyses by candidate ethnicity show that although White candidates out-perform BME candidates, the differences are largely mirrored across the two examinations. Whilst the reason for the differential performance is unclear, the similarity of the effects in independent knowledge and clinical examinations suggests the differences are unlikely to result from specific features of either assessment and most likely represent true differences in ability.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualState MedicineBlack PeopleClinical CompetenceEducation, Medical, GraduateEthnicityGeneral PracticeHospital MedicineHumansInternal MedicineMinority GroupsRacismSpecialty BoardsStatistics as TopicUnited KingdomWhite People

Identifiers

PMID25592199
PMCPMC4302509

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.