SynthesisJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2024
Insights into undergraduate medical student selection tools: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Synthesis in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transparency of Alpha Omega Alpha Selection Processes and Bias Mitigation Across US Medical Schools: A Cross-Sectional Mixed Methods Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- A Qualitative Study of a New Generation of Irish-Trained Doctors' Views on Selection for Medicine.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2026Article
- Predictive Validity of Pre-Clinical Academic Achievements in Comprehensive Basic Science Examination: A Nationwide Cohort of Iranian Medical Students.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- Notice of Retraction and Replacement: Insights into undergraduate medical student selection tools: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Reinstatement · 2024-12-31Error in Data · Error in Results and/or Conclusions · Error in Text · Retract and Replace ·
- RetractedandRepublishedFrom
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEvaluating medical school selection tools is vital for evidence-based student selection. With previous reviews revealing knowledge gaps, this meta-analysis offers insights into the effectiveness of these selection tools.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted applying the following criteria: peer-reviewed articles available in English, published from 2010 and which include empirical data linking performance in selection tools with assessment and dropout outcomes of undergraduate entry medical programs. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, general opinion pieces, or commentaries were excluded. Effect sizes (ESs) of the predictability of academic and clinical performance within and by the end of the medicine program were extracted, and the pooled ESs were presented.
resultsSixty-seven out of 2,212 articles were included, which yielded 236 ESs. Previous academic achievement predicted medical program academic performance (Cohen’s d=0.697 in early program; 0.619 in end of program) and clinical exams (0.545 in end of program). Overall aptitude tests predicted academic achievement in both the early and last years (0.550 & 0.371, respectively). Within aptitude tests, verbal reasoning and quantitative reasoning best predicted academic achievement in the early program (0.704 & 0.643, respectively). Neither panel interviews, multiple mini-interviews, nor situational judgement tests (SJT) yielded statistically significant pooled ES.
conclusionCurrent evidence suggests that learning outcomes are predicted by previous academic achievement and aptitude tests. The predictive value of SJT and topics such as selection algorithms, features of interview (e.g., content of the questions) and the way the interviewers’ reports are used, warrant further research.
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.