Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38997529›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2025

Analysis of Oncology and Radiation Therapy Representation on the National Board of Medical Examiners Official Practice Material for the United States National Standardized Medical Board Examinations.

Mary T Mahoney, Lauren C Linkowski, Trudy C Wu, Jie Jane Chen, Beth K Neilsen, Petria S Thompson, Michael D Mix, Karna T Sura, Malcolm D Mattes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

Mary T MahoneyTransitional Year Residency Program, Garnet Health Medical Center, 707 East Main St, Middletown, NY, 10940, USA. marymahoneymd02@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1857-9423
Lauren C LinkowskiDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4374-3384
Trudy C WuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9475-2072
Jie Jane ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5380-4825
Beth K NeilsenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4859-6486
Petria S ThompsonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3839-4303
Michael D MixDepartment of Radiation Oncology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7287-1791
Karna T SuraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4369-3631
Malcolm D MattesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1151-896X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiation therapy (RT) is a critical component of multidisciplinary cancer care, but has inconsistent curricular exposure. We characterize the radiation oncology (RO) content on the standardized undergraduate medical examinations by comparing its context and prevalence with other domains in oncology. National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) self-assessments and sample questions for the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Steps 1-3 and NBME clinical science shelf examinations were accessed (n = 3878). Questions were inductively analyzed for content pertaining to oncology and treatment modalities of RT, systemic therapy (ST), and surgical intervention (SI). Questions were coded using USMLE Physician Tasks/Competencies and thematic analysis. Descriptive statistics and analyses using the Kruskal-Wallis test are reported. A total of 337 questions (8.6%) within the USMLE and shelf exams included oncology content, with 101 questions (2.6%) referencing at least one cancer treatment modality (n = 35 RT, 45 ST, 57 SI). Treatment questions were more common on USMLE Step 2 CK (n = 35/101, 32%) compared to Step 1 (n = 23/101, 23%) and Step 3 (n = 8/101, 8%) (p < 0.001). RT was significantly less likely to be the correct answer (2/35, 6%) compared to ST (4/45, 9%) and SI (18/57, 32%) (p = 0.003). Therapeutic oncology questions are uncommon on the examination material, with an under-representation of radiation-related content, and contextual bias favoring surgical approaches. We advocate for greater RO involvement in the content creation of such examinations to help trainees better understand multidisciplinary cancer care.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, UndergraduateLicensure, MedicalMedical OncologyNeoplasmsRadiation OncologyRadiotherapyCurriculumHumansUnited StatesOncologyRadiation oncologyStandardized medical licensing examinationUndergraduate medical education

Identifiers

PMID38997529
PMCPMC11846759

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.