ArticleBMC medical education2026
A ten-year retrospective analysis of medical school rankings in the United Kingdom.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNational rankings are employed by higher education (HE) institutions to guide strategic decisions and by prospective applicants and their supporters to guide decisions about where to study. Given the increased marketisation of HE and the use of rankings in decision making, it is essential to understand the nuances of rankings: how different systems lead to different rankings, the correlation between rankings of high-profile programmes such as medicine and that of their institutions, and how rankings shift over time. To date, no studies have assessed agreement between ranking systems for medical programmes in the United Kingdom (UK). Given that various ranking systems are used globally to compare institutions within and across countries, a deeper understanding of these ranking systems is crucial.
methodRetrospective data across a ten-year period (2016–2025) were obtained on the national rankings of medicine programmes in the UK: the Complete University Guide, Guardian, and The Times. The data were analysed to investigate agreement in ranking of medical programmes over time and the agreement between overall ranking of an institution and the ranking of its medical programme.
resultsRanking systems showed a high level of agreement with each other. However, mean scores over the ten-year period varied by ranking system, whereby institutions occupying the ‘top three’ positions were not wholly consistent across systems. Associations between institutional rank and that of institutions’ medicine programmes were statistically significant (r = 0.36–0.38, p < 0.01).
conclusionsAgreement between ranking systems for medical programmes in the UK is present, yet there remains notable variation for some institutions within those ranking systems, likely due to different components and weightings that make up these scores. The weak association between overall rank and medical ranks implies that the presence of a medical school at an institution does not guarantee a high overall rank – higher universities can have lower medical schools, and vice versa. This suggests that prospective students should consider an array of factors when deciding on where to study; not rankings alone.
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.