ArticleBMC medical education2020
Exam performance of different admission quotas in the first part of the state examination in medicine: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Admission Routes and Demographics as Predictors of Academic Performance in Medical Students: A Retrospective Cohort of Grade Point Averages (GPAs) and Comprehensive Exam Scores.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Female Attendings in University Clinics of Surgery in Germany: A Scoping Analysis of an Ongoing Disparity.Cureus · 2024Article
- Physicians' Social Skills - Conceptualization, Taxonomy, and Behavioral Assessment.Perspectives on medical education · 2024Article
- Admission criteria and academic performance in medical school.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- The predictive validity of admission criteria for the results of clinical competency assessment with an emphasis on family medicine in the fifth year of medical education: an observational study.BMC medical education · 2022Observational
- Are different medical school admission tests associated with the outcomes of a simulation-based OSCE?BMC medical education · 2021Article
- Correction to: Exam performance of different admission quotas in the first part of the state examination in medicine: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost medical students in Germany are admitted via selection procedures, which are adjusted to the demands of the universities. At Lübeck medical school, scores from interviews that measure non-academic skills and pre-university GPAs are summed to arrive at an admission decision. This article seeks to illuminate the effectiveness of this selection procedure in comparison to other non-selected student groups.
methodsQuota information and exam results from the first federal exam were linked for students admitted to Lübeck medical school between 2012 and 2015 (N = 655). Five different student groups (university-specific selection quota, pre-university GPA quota, waiting time quota, ex-ante quota and foreign students) were compared regarding exam attempts, written and oral grades, temporal continuity and examination success in the standard study period.
resultsWhile the pre-university GPA quota outperformed all other quotas regarding written and oral grades, it did not differ from the selection quota regarding exam attempts, temporal continuity and examination success in the standard study period. Students in the waiting time and ex-ante quotas performed inferior by comparison. The results of foreign students were the most problematic.
conclusionStudents selected by the university show high temporal continuity and examination success. These results, and possible advantages in physician eligibility, argue for the utilisation of non-academic skills for admission.
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.