Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40854844›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Do cognitively based medical selection assessment scores predict doctors' clinical competency? A protocol for a systematic review.

Taha Khan, Karen Mattick, Paul Alexander Tiffin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Taha KhanHull York Medical School Centre for Health and Population Sciences, York, UK taha.khan6@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8527-2245
Karen MattickMedical Education, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Paul Alexander TiffinHealth Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical CompetenceCognitionEducational MeasurementPhysiciansSchool Admission CriteriaHumansResearch DesignSchools, MedicalSystematic Reviews as TopicClinical CompetenceHealth policyHealth WorkforceMEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAININGSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID40854844
PMCPMC12382573

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.