SynthesisClinical radiology2018
The Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists (FRCR) examination: a review of the evidence.
Synthesis in Clinical radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessing the barriers and enablers to the implementation of the diagnostic radiographer musculoskeletal X-ray reporting service within the NHS in England: a systematic literature review.BMC health services research · 2023Pooled it
- Assessing the Capability of ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Microsoft Bing in Solving Radiology Case Vignettes.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2024Article
- Can artificial intelligence pass the Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists examination? Multi-reader diagnostic accuracy study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Article
- Review of Junior Resident Plain Film Reporting and Audit in Singapore.Journal of graduate medical education · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists (FRCR) examination is the professional qualification that is essential for career progression in clinical radiology within the UK. It is also important for career progression in many countries internationally. The FRCR has evolved and changed over the last decade. In this systematic review we appraise and summarise the available data relating to the FRCR emphasising the published evidence regarding the validity, reliability, and acceptability of this examination. Comparison is made to other equivalent medical examinations, as well as a more recently published commissioned external review of the FRCR examinations. The Clinical Radiology Part 2B (CR2B) examination in its pre-existing format is reliable, valid, and acceptable. Recommendations from the commissioned external review are based primarily on expert opinion, with a limited evidence base comprising data from a small sample acquired during a single examination sitting and without peer review. Unlike the CR2B examination, there is little evidence regarding assessment of the CR1 and CR2 examinations. Both the CR1 and CR2 examinations are currently in the process of undergoing major changes to their formats. Blueprinting items to the curriculum might improve acceptability. Other changes may improve transparency and reliability of these assessments. Our analysis and many aspects of the external review may provide pointers regarding how the upcoming data produced by the "automated" FRCR examinations can be further analysed to provide a more robust evaluation.
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.