ArticleANZ journal of surgery2026
Fairness, Consistency and Bias in the RACS General Surgery Fellowship Examination.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe General Surgery Fellowship Examination is the final hurdle examination before being eligible for fellowship of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. The purpose of this study was to assess the consistency and reliability of this examination, specifically whether there was evidence of systemic gender bias.
methodsThis is a retrospective audit of marks awarded in the examination between 2018 and 2022. Examination components were marked separately by two examiners, who assigned a consensus mark after discussion. Candidates' marks were analysed according to their demographics. Inter-observer agreement between examining pairs was analysed, as were marks awarded by individual examiners.
resultsOverall, 811 candidates (548 [67%] men and 263 [33%] women) sat the examination, of whom 520 (64%) passed. The pass rate was consistent over the study period. A total of 5672 pairs of examiners' marks were analysed to determine inter-observer agreement. Inter-observer correlation was 0.89 (95% C.I. 0.88-0.89). There were 110 examiners (92 men and 18 women). No examiner's marks were outside the 95% control limit for strictness or leniency compared with their peers. Pass rates were similar for male and female candidates (343/548 [63%] male vs. 177/263 [67%], p = 0.20). There were 102 marking pairs with one female and one male examiner. Inter-rater agreement between these examiners was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82-0.91) when examining men and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.76-0.85) for women.
conclusionWe found the examination to be consistent, fair and reliable, with no evidence of systemic gender bias.
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.