ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2019
Sex differences in fitness to practise test scores: a cohort study of GPs.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differential attainment in assessment of postgraduate surgical trainees: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- The ISAC Paradigm to Tame Oral Cancer in Saudi Arabia: A Quasi-experimental Study.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023Article
- Physician factors associated with medical errors in Norwegian primary care emergency services.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2021Article
- Specialist LINK and primary care network clinical pathways - a new approach to patient referral: a cross-sectional survey of awareness, utilization and usability among family physicians in Calgary.BMC family practice · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTests of competence are written and clinical assessments taken by doctors under investigation by the General Medical Council (GMC) who have significant performance concerns. Male doctors on average perform more poorly in clinical assessments than female doctors, and are more likely to be sanctioned. It is unclear why.
aimTo examine sex differences in the tests of competence assessment scores of GPs under investigation by the GMC, compared with GPs not under investigation, and whether scores mediate any relationship between sex and sanction likelihood. DESIGN AND
settingRetrospective cohort study of GPs' administrative tests of competence data.
methodAnalysis of variance was undertaken to compare written and clinical tests of competence performance by sex and GP group (under investigation versus volunteers). Path analysis was conducted to explore the relationship between sex, written and clinical tests of competence performance, and investigation outcome.
resultsOn the written test, female GPs under investigation outperformed male GPs under investigation (Cohen's
conclusionFemale GPs outperform male GPs on clinical assessments, even among GPs with generally very poor performance. Male GPs under investigation may have particularly poor knowledge. Further research is required to understand potential sex differences in doctors who take tests of competence and how these impact on sex differences in investigation outcomes.
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.