Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40365588›Full record

ArticleCanadian medical education journal2025

A critical analysis of The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada examination experience.

Malcolm M MacFarlane

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian medical education journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Royal College exams, examined.Canadian medical education journal · 2025
    Article
  3. Embracing the next frontier in assessment.Canadian medical education journal · 2025
    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

1 author.

Malcolm M MacFarlanec/o 22879-29B Avenue, Langley, BC, Canada, V2Z 3B1.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) plays a leading role in specialty and subspecialty post graduate medical education (PGME) in Canada. As the RCPSC accredits PGME programs, these programs are structured to meet the RCPSC Competence by Design model and their CanMEDS roles. RCPSC Certification is required by Medical Regulatory Agencies (MRAs) across Canada as a condition of entry to independent practice. The RCPSC relies heavily on the use of high-stakes subject examinations as a key component of its Certification process. Recently, questions have been raised regarding the usefulness of such high-stakes examinations. If such examinations are to be fair and equitable, they must be designed and implemented in accordance with best practices for educational testing and the processes for implementation and grading must be transparent and fair. This paper reviews the recent literature on high-stakes examinations and best practices in examination construction, references the findings of a survey of RCPSC examination experiences conducted by the Society for Canadians Studying Medicine Abroad exploring the perception of respondents, and raises concerns regarding RCPSC examinations related to validity, reliability, and fairness. The paper concludes by recommending closer scrutiny of RCPSC examination processes by interested stakeholders and by provincial MRA's who delegate entry to practice decisions to the RCPSC.

Indexed as

CertificationClinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, GraduateCanadaHumansReproducibility of ResultsSocieties, Medical

Identifiers

PMID40365588
PMCPMC12068213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.