Trial reportBMJ open2025
Does candidate race influence simulated patient ratings in standardised assessments of clinical practice? A single-blinded randomised study in UK medical schools.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Evaluating equity interventions and the limits of institutional change: from admission to clinical leadership in UK medical education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesStandardisation of medical examinations involves minimising assessor stereotyping and bias for a fair process. This study aimed to determine whether being a non-white candidate affected scoring by simulated patients, compared with a white candidate, at three different performance grades in the same history-taking station.
designSingle-blinded, video-based, randomised study.
participants163 simulated patients watched a randomly allocated set of six videos. Each set consisted of three white and three non-white (South Asian, black and Chinese) candidates performing at either fail, borderline or pass grades. Therefore, each simulated patient assessor observed one white and one non-white candidate at each grade and scored communication and professionalism domains.
main outcome measureThe median and interquartile range of the difference between total scores for the white and non-white candidates were compared at all three performance grades.
resultsThe black fail candidate scored statistically significantly lower than their white fail counterpart. The black borderline and Chinese borderline candidates scored significantly higher than their white counterparts. No other differences were statistically significant at p<0.0057.
conclusionsBeing a black candidate at the fail level of performance was associated with a lower score than being a white candidate at the fail level of performance, thereby indicating a negative stereotype against black students. However, being black or Chinese at a borderline grade was associated with higher scores than being white candidate at the same grade potentially due to self-awareness of potential bias when there is uncertainty regarding the performance.
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.