ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2022
Factors associated with successful passage of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine general examination.
Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Factors associated with successful passage of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine general examination.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBoard certification relies on passing the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ACVIM) general examination. Pass rates might depend on properties of residency training programs (RTP). HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that <4 weeks of dedicated study time, lack of board preparation lectures, status as a re-taker, and private practice RTP would result in lower pass rates of the ACVIM general examination. SUBJECTS: Two hundred forty-eight ACVIM general examinees.
methodsCross-sectional study. Examinees were surveyed using a Qualtrics survey over a 3-year period. Factors included: study weeks, on-call duty, board preparation lectures, academic or private practice program, and status as a re-taker.
resultsFirst-attempt examinees were more likely to pass (P < .0001, OR 5.12, 95% CI [2.53, 10.52]). For first-attempt examinees, on-call duty during study weeks resulted in a lower pass rate (P = .002, OR 0.31, 95% CI [0.16, 0.67]). General didactic and specific board-preparation lectures resulted in higher pass rates (P = .003, OR 3.08, 95% CI [1.44, 6.61]; P = .02, OR 3.04, 95% CI [1.20, 7.68]). Diplomate-led board-preparation lectures resulted in higher pass rates than resident-led (P = .007, OR 10.67, 95% CI [1.75, 64.91]). Using a mixed effect logistic model, predicted pass rates were highest with both lack of on-call duty and presence of didactic lectures (predicted pass rate 95%, 95% CI [0.87, 0.98]). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: To optimize pass rates, RTP should provide study time without on-call duty. Provision of didactic lectures and specific board-preparation lectures by diplomates assist in candidate preparation.
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.