Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38816822›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

Differential attainment in assessment of postgraduate surgical trainees: a scoping review.

Rebecca L Jones, Suwimol Prusmetikul, Sarah Whitehorn

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rebecca L JonesDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK. rljones@doctors.org.uk.
Suwimol PrusmetikulDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Sarah WhitehornDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSolving disparities in assessments is crucial to a successful surgical training programme. The first step in levelling these inequalities is recognising in what contexts they occur, and what protected characteristics are potentially implicated.

methodsThis scoping review was based on Arksey & O'Malley's guiding principles. OVID and Embase were used to identify articles, which were then screened by three reviewers.

resultsFrom an initial 358 articles, 53 reported on the presence of differential attainment in postgraduate surgical assessments. The majority were quantitative studies (77.4%), using retrospective designs. 11.3% were qualitative. Differential attainment affects a varied range of protected characteristics. The characteristics most likely to be investigated were gender (85%), ethnicity (37%) and socioeconomic background (7.5%). Evidence of inequalities are present in many types of assessment, including: academic achievements, assessments of progression in training, workplace-based assessments, logs of surgical experience and tests of technical skills.

conclusionAttainment gaps have been demonstrated in many types of assessment, including supposedly "objective" written assessments and at revalidation. Further research is necessary to delineate the most effective methods to eliminate bias in higher surgical training. Surgical curriculum providers should be informed by the available literature on inequalities in surgical training, as well as other neighbouring specialties such as medicine or general practice, when designing assessments and considering how to mitigate for potential causes of differential attainment.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, GraduateGeneral SurgeryFemaleHumansSocioeconomic FactorsAssessmentDifferential attainmentDisparityDiversityEquityInequalityPostgraduate

Identifiers

PMID38816822
PMCPMC11141033

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.