Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30286650›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2018

Does the Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination predict 'on-the-job' performance during UK higher specialty surgical training?

Dsg Scrimgeour, P A Brennan, G Griffiths, A J Lee, Fct Smith, J Cleland

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Core training and surgical opportunities: A UK-based analysis.Journal of clinical and translational research · 2022
    Article
  6. Differential attainment, socioeconomic factors and surgical training.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Dsg ScrimgeourCentre for Healthcare Education Research and Innovation, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen , Scotland , UK.
P A BrennanIntercollegiate Committee for Basic Surgical Examinations , UK.
G GriffithsDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee , Scotland , UK.
A J LeeMedical Statistics Team, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen , Scotland , UK.
Fct SmithIntercollegiate Committee for Basic Surgical Examinations , UK.
J ClelandCentre for Healthcare Education Research and Innovation, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen , Scotland , UK.
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBAberdeen Royal Infirmary · GBNinewells Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) is a mandatory examination to enter higher surgical specialty training in the UK. It is designed to help to ensure that successful candidates are competent to practice as higher surgical trainees. The annual review of competence progression (ARCP) assesses trainees' competence to progress to the next level of training and can be interpreted as a measure of 'on-the-job' performance. We investigated the relationship between MRCS performance and ARCP outcomes. MATERIALS AND

methodsAll UK medical graduates who passed MRCS (Parts A and B) from 2007 to 2016 were included. MRCS scores, attempts and sociodemographics for each candidate were crosslinked with ARCP outcomes (satisfactory, unsatisfactory and insufficient evidence). Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify potential independent predictors of ARCP outcomes.

resultsA total of 2570 trainees underwent 11,064 ARCPs; 1589 (61.8%) had only satisfactory outcomes recorded throughout training; 510 (19.9%) had at least one unsatisfactory outcome; and 471 (18.3%) supplied insufficient evidence. After adjusting for age, gender, first language and Part A performance, ethnicity (non-white vs white, OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.71), Part B passing score (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00) and number of attempts at Part B (two or more attempts vs one attempt, OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.94) were found to be independent predictors of an unsatisfactory ARCP outcome.

conclusionsThis is the first study to identify predictors of ARCP outcomes during higher surgical specialty training in the UK and provides further evidence of the predictive validity of the MRCS examination.

Indexed as

ARCPclinical performanceMRCSpredictive validity

Identifiers

PMID30286650
PMCPMC6204508
OpenAlexW2895066928

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.