ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2018
Predictors of success in the Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Big data analysis: examination of the relationship between candidates' sociodemographic characteristics and performance in the UK's Membership of the Royal College of Physicians Part 1 examination.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2025Article
- Variation in Experiences and Attainment in Surgery Between Ethnicities of UK Medical Students and Doctors (ATTAIN): Protocol for a Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Article
- Review
- Predictors of ophthalmology career success (POCS) study.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Relationship between sociodemographic factors and specialty destination of UK trainee doctors: a national cohort study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Relationship between sociodemographic factors and selection into UK postgraduate medical training programmes: a national cohort study.BMJ open · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS, Parts A and B) is designed to safeguard patients and ensure high standards for trainees wishing to pursue a surgical career. We investigated which factors predict Part A and B success. Methods UK graduates who had attempted both parts of MRCS from September 2007 to February 2016 were included. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the linear relationship between each part of MRCS and logistic regression analysis to identify potential independent predictors of MRCS pass/fail outcome. Results A positive correlation between Part A and B score was identified (r = 0.41, P < 0.01). In Part A, males had higher pass rates than females (odds ratio, OR, 2.78, 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.83-4.19), white candidates were more likely to pass than black minority and ethnic doctors (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.52-1.89), foundation year 1 doctors had higher pass rates than all other grades (e.g. core surgical year 2 trainees vs. foundation year 1 doctors, OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32-0.77) and younger graduates were more likely to pass than older graduates (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.81-3.63). In addition to ethnicity and stage of training, Part A performance (number of attempts and score) was an independent predictor for Part B. Conclusions Part A performance is related to Part B score. Many independent predictors of MRCS success were identified, but only stage of training and ethnicity were found to be common predictors of both parts. This article summarises the findings of our most recent MRCS study which was published in The Surgeon (online) in October 2017.
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.