ArticleBMC medical education2019
Multivariable analysis of factors associated with USMLE scores across U.S. medical schools.
Article in BMC medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- An evaluation of the undergraduate medicine licensure examinations development and implementation practices: lessons from Ethiopia with global implications.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Spaced repetition and other key factors influencing medical school entrance exam success: insights from a French survey.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Exploring Students' Use of Medical Education Resources for the USMLE Step 2 CK Exam Preparation.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Are medical school preclinical tests biased for sex and race? A differential item functioning analysis.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Public Board Score Reporting Undermines Holistic Review for Residency Selection.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Factors and barriers that influence the matriculation of underrepresented students in medicine.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Review
- Review
- Review
- Article
- Characteristics of First-Year Residents in Top-Ranked United States Ophthalmology Residency Programs.Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017) · 2022Article
- Article
- Validity and Reliability of Pre-matriculation and Institutional Assessments in Predicting USMLE STEP 1 Success: Lessons From a Traditional 2 x 2 Curricular Model.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Institutional differences in USMLE Step 1 and 2 CK performance: Cross-sectional study of 89 US allopathic medical schools.PloS one · 2019Observational
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 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGauging medical education quality has always remained challenging. Many studies have examined predictors of standardized exam performance; however, data sets do not distinguish by institution or curriculum. Our objective is to present a summary of variables associated with the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores, and thus identify institutions (and therefore curriculums) which deviate from trend lines by producing higher USMLE scores despite having lower entrance grade point averages and medical college admissions test (MCAT) scores.
methodsData was obtained from U.S. News and World Report's 2014 evaluation of allopathic U.S. medical schools. A univariate analysis was performed first for each variable using two sample t-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test for categorical variables, and Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients for continuous variables. A multivariable linear regression model was developed to identify the factors contributing to USMLE scores. All statistical analyses were two-sided and performed using SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).
resultsUnivariate analysis reveals a significant association between USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores with medical college admissions test scores, grade point averages, school type (private vs. public), full-time faculty-to-student ratio, National Institute of Health funds, residency director assessment score, peer assessment score, and class size. Of these nine variables, MCAT scores and Step 1 scores display the strongest correlation (corr = 0.72, P < .0001). Multivariable analysis also supports a significant association between MCAT scores and Step scores, meanwhile National Institute of Health funding size demonstrates a negative correlation with USMLE Step 2 scores. Although MCAT scores and National Institute of Health funds are significantly associated with USMLE performance, six outlier institutions were identified, producing higher USMLE scores than trend line predictions.
conclusionsOutlier institutions produce USMLE scores that do not follow expected trend lines. Their performance might be explainable by differences in curriculum. Having identified these institutions, their curriculums can be further studied to determine what factors enhance student learning.
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.