ReviewAdvances in medical education and practice2025
The Generation and Use of Medical MCQs: A Narrative Review.
Review in Advances in medical education and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Evolving Curricular Needs of Rheumatology Fellowship Programs, Fellows-in-Training, and the American College of Rheumatology's Virtual Rheumatology Program for Fellows-in-Training.ACR open rheumatology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of three artificial intelligence chatbots for generating clinical hematology multiple choice questions for medical students.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Review
- Prompt engineering for single-best-answer multiple-choice questions in licensing examinations: a narrative review with a case study involving the Korean Medical Licensing Examination.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of multiple-choice questions in medical assessments is ubiquitous and extends in breadth from undergraduate formative and summative assessments to postgraduate certifications and reaccreditations. Despite the clear importance of multiple-choice questions in medicine, in the last thirty years there has been no authoritative peer reviewed publication that reviews the overall generation and use of multiple-choice questions in medicine. Producing effective and useful medical multiple-choice questions is as much of an art form as it is a science - unfortunately, every new writer of such questions tends to rely on their own experiences of such questions and then travel along their individual and tortuous pathway to produce "acceptable" questions. Our review article provides practical guidance and information that will assist writers of medical multiple-choice questions. As well as extensively discussing common pitfalls, we provide a checklist that represents optimum practice in question generation. We directly compare examples of good and poor multiple-choice questions. We describe the metrics for measuring effective questions; specifically, the discrimination and difficulty indices. We discuss the optimum approach to training faculty to produce
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.