ReviewMedical education online2026
Shelf help: what powers medical student subject exam performance in the United States.
Review in Medical education online, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFollowing the change in 2022 of a scored United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 to a binary pass-fail grading system, greater emphasis has been placed on the Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (Step 2 CK) exam. Shelf or subject exams offered by the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) help prepare students for Step 2CK and therefore deserve the attention of clerkship directors. This paper reviews the literature pertaining to the factors that positively and negatively impact medical students' performance on the shelf exams, including but not limited to performance in the pre-clinical years, clinical exposures, peer learning, active or team-based learning, length of clerkships, and order and number of previous shelf exams.
methodsThe PubMed database was searched to identify studies describing factors influencing performance on shelf exam scores during medical school and strategies for improving shelf scores. Studies were identified through iterative searches using multiple keyword combinations related to NBME shelf examinations, NBME subject examinations, clerkship performance, academic achievement, and educational interventions. Inclusion criteria consisted of English-language studies published between 2005 and 2025 involving students at U.S. allopathic or osteopathic medical schools. The included studies were reviewed for relevance and methodological rigour, including consideration of study design, sample size, statistical analyses, and reported outcomes.
resultsA robust pre-clinical education remains vital for success on NBME shelf examinations. Exam scores are also influenced by the number and order of previous exams. Increased clinical exposure, active learning, team-based approaches, and peer review sessions have not consistently shown improvements in performance.
conclusionsThis review underscores the importance of a foundational understanding of the basic sciences for student success on exams, while acknowledging that clerkship directors must balance their obligation to adequately prepare students for standardized testing with their mission to craft compassionate and competent future clinicians.
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.