ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2015
UK medical selection: lottery or meritocracy?
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring "Talent" in Medical Education: A Scoping Review.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- Time for preference-informed foundation allocation?Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2022Article
- Academic and non-academic predictors of academic performance in medical school: an exploratory cohort study.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Dental foundation training in the COVID-19 era - the national recruitment lottery.British dental journal · 2021Article
- Are different medical school admission tests associated with the outcomes of a simulation-based OSCE?BMC medical education · 2021Article
- Selection and academic success of medical students in Hamburg, Germany.BMC medical education · 2019Article
- The predictive validity of a situational judgement test, a clinical problem solving test and the core medical training selection methods for performance in specialty training .Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2017Article
- Situational judgement tests: important clarifications regarding the methodology.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2017Article
- Selection of medical students on the basis of non-academic skills: is it worth the trouble?Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
From senior school through to consultancy, a plethora of assessments shape medical careers. Multiple methods of assessment are used to discriminate between applicants. Medical selection in the UK appears to be moving increasingly towards non-knowledge-based testing at all career stages. We review the evidence for non-knowledge-based tests and discuss their perceived benefits. We raise the question: is the current use of non-knowledge-based tests within the UK at risk of undermining more robust measures of medical school and postgraduate performance?
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.