Observational studyPloS one2019
Institutional differences in USMLE Step 1 and 2 CK performance: Cross-sectional study of 89 US allopathic medical schools.
Observational study in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Article
- Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) are important for trainee medical knowledge assessment and licensure, medical school program assessment, and residency program applicant screening. Little is known about how USMLE performance varies between institutions. This observational study attempts to identify institutions with above-predicted USMLE performance, which may indicate educational programs successful at promoting students' medical knowledge.
methodsSelf-reported institution-level data was tabulated from publicly available US News and World Report and Association of American Medical Colleges publications for 131 US allopathic medical schools from 2012-2014. Bivariate and multiple linear regression were performed. The primary outcome was institutional mean USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores outside a 95% prediction interval (≥2 standard deviations above or below predicted) based on multiple regression accounting for students' prior academic performance.
resultsEighty-nine US medical schools (54 public, 35 private) reported complete USMLE scores over the three-year study period, representing over 39,000 examinees. Institutional mean grade point average (GPA) and Medical College Admission Test score (MCAT) achieved an adjusted R2 of 72% for Step 1 (standardized βMCAT 0.7, βGPA 0.2) and 41% for Step 2 CK (standardized βMCAT 0.5, βGPA 0.3) in multiple regression. Using this regression model, 5 institutions were identified with above-predicted institutional USMLE performance, while 3 institutions had below-predicted performance.
conclusionsThis exploratory study identified several US allopathic medical schools with significant above- or below-predicted USMLE performance. Although limited by self-reported data, the findings raise questions about inter-institutional USMLE performance parity, and thus, educational parity. Additional work is needed to determine the etiology and robustness of the observed performance differences.
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.