Observational studyBMJ open2022
Changing trends in ethnicity and academic performance: observational cohort data from a UK medical school.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Perpetual Cycle of Racial Bias in Healthcare and Healthcare Education: A Systematic Review.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Pooled it
- Differential attainment within medical education: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Exploring pre-clinical medical students' perception of and participation in active learning: A mixed-methods transnational study.Medical education · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveQuantify differential attainment by ethnicity in undergraduate medical assessments and evaluate whether institutional efforts to reduce the attainment gap have had impact.
designObservational cohort study.
settingA single UK MBBS medical programme.
participantsPseudonymised data of adults aged ≥18 years enrolled in one of the UK MBBS medical programmes between 2012 and 2018. Ethnicity was self-declared during enrolment as White, Asian, Black, mixed and other.
main outcome measureModule mark (distinction, merit, pass, fail) graded according to a variety of assessments, including single best answer examinations, objective structured clinical examinations and coursework submissions. All modular assessments are graded as a percentage. Logistic regression models were used to calculate relative risk ratio to study the association between ethnicity and attainment gap over a calendar and scholastic year. Models were adjusted for age, gender, social deprivation and scholastic year of study.
results3714 student records were included. In the sample, 2134 students (57%) were non-white. The proportion of non-white students increased from 2007 (49%) to 2018 (70%). Mean age was 18 (IQR 18-21) and 56.6% were females. Higher proportion of non-white students 218 (24.8%) were from more deprived backgrounds versus white 76 (14.8%). Compared with non-white, there were no significant differences in the proportion of students failing assessments. However, white students were more likely to achieve merit (relative risk ratio 1.29 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.45)) or distinction (1.69 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.08)). Differences in attainment gap have remained unchanged over time, and for black students, attainment gap grew between their first and final year of study.
conclusionA similar proportion (97%) of non-white and white students had a passing score, but attainment gap for higher grades persists over years despite widespread efforts in medical schools to diminish the attainment gap linked to ethnicity. Our findings are from a single institution, thus affecting generalisability.
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.