SynthesisBMC medical education2026
Prevalence of test anxiety among medical students: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTest anxiety is a situation-specific construct that can markedly impair cognitive functioning and academic performance in high-stakes educational environments. Medical students are frequently exposed to evaluative situations, and test anxiety is common in this population; however, reported prevalence estimates vary widely due to methodological inconsistencies across studies. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of test anxiety among medical students.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science in March 2026, supplemented by backward and forward citation searching. Studies were eligible if they quantitatively assessed test anxiety among medical students and reported a discrete prevalence estimate. The pooled prevalence was calculated using a random-effects model with a generalized linear mixed model and logit transformation. Subgroup analyses were conducted by gender, academic year, geographic region, assessment tool, administration timing, and sampling technique. A meta-regression examined the association between publication year and prevalence. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale adapted for descriptive cross-sectional studies (NOS-xs2).
resultsThirty-five studies comprising 13,489 medical students were included. The overall pooled prevalence of test anxiety was 49.8% (95% CI: 39.9%-59.6%, I² = 98.2%, Tau² = 1.33), which decreased to 44.9% upon exclusion of studies utilizing the Visual Analogue Scale (n = 3). Among subgroup analyses, only the assessment tool showed a significant effect. Nevertheless, prevalence was numerically higher in females (52.6%) than males (46.3%), among first-year students (58.6%) compared with fifth-year students (47.9%); and highest in South-East Asia (59.3%), followed by the Middle East (54.1%). Prevalence was also highest in studies conducted during examinations (55.4%), compared with pre-examination (51.7%) and post-examination (41.5%) periods, and in studies using convenience sampling (52.9%) compared to random sampling (44.7%). Meta-regression showed no significant association between publication year and prevalence (β = 0.003, p > 0.9).
conclusionsTest anxiety affects nearly half of all medical students globally. The substantial heterogeneity underscores the need for standardised measurement and precise reporting of administration timing in future research.
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.