ArticleCanadian medical education journal2025
A critical analysis of The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada examination experience.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Practices in Vestibular Migraine Management Among Canadian Otolaryngologists: A National Survey.Audiology research · 2026Article
- Royal College exams, examined.Canadian medical education journal · 2025Article
- Embracing the next frontier in assessment.Canadian medical education journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.