ArticlePloS one2021
Exploring pooled analysis of pretested items to monitor the performance of medical students exposed to different curriculum designs.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Progress test in the undergraduate nursing course at a São Paulo public university: progressive knowledge gain reflects curricular characteristics.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Absence of item origin bias on a Brazilian interinstitutional Progress Test examination: A pooled analysis of items approach.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Several methods have been proposed for analyzing differences between test scores, such as using mean scores, cumulative deviation, and mixed-effect models. Here, we explore the pooled analysis of retested Progress Test items to monitor the performance of first-year medical students who were exposed to a new curriculum design. This was a cross-sectional study of students in their first year of a medical program who participated in the annual interinstitutional Progress Tests from 2013 to 2019. We analyzed the performance of first-year students in the 2019 test and compared it with that of first-year students taking the test from 2013 to 2018 and encountering the same items. For each item, we calculated odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals; we also performed meta-analyses with fixed effects for each content area in the pooled analysis and presented the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). In all, we used 63 items, which were divided into basic sciences, internal medicine, pediatrics, surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, and public health. Significant differences were found between groups in basic sciences (OR = 1.172 [CI95% 1.005 CI 1.366], p = 0.043) and public health (OR = 1.54 [CI95% CI 1.25-1.897], p < 0.001), which may reflect the characteristics of the new curriculum. Thus, pooled analysis of pretested items may provide indicators of different performance. This method may complement analysis of score differences on benchmark assessments.
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.