ArticleBMJ open2025
Do cognitively based medical selection assessment scores predict doctors' clinical competency? A protocol for a systematic review.
Article 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInternationally, medical schools increasingly use cognitively based selection assessments to select applicants. These tests evaluate cognitive performance and show some predictive validity for academic attainment during medical school, often incremental to that provided by secondary school grades. However, their use imposes burdens on applicants and institutions. They may also disadvantage certain under-represented groups. Therefore, to justify their adoption, these assessments should ideally predict doctors' future clinical competency, which can be evaluated by clinical outcomes or performance in post-qualification practical clinical examinations. Hence, this systematic review aims to collate and appraise evidence linking scores from these assessments to doctors' clinical competency. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive search strategy, co-developed with stakeholders, will search eight databases and grey literature from January 2000 onwards. Study selection, data extraction, study quality and the risk of bias assessment will be performed independently by two authors. A narrative synthesis will be used to appraise and integrate the findings from the included studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant academic conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42024539112).
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.