• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

基于认知的医学选拔评估分数能否预测医生的临床能力?一项系统评价方案。

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

作者信息

Khan Taha, Mattick Karen, Tiffin Paul Alexander

机构信息

Hull York Medical School Centre for Health and Population Sciences, York, UK

Medical Education, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2025 Aug 25;15(8):e104028. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-104028.

DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-104028
PMID:40854844
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Internationally, 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).

摘要

引言

在国际上,医学院校越来越多地使用基于认知的选拔评估来挑选申请者。这些测试评估认知表现,并且对医学院期间的学业成绩显示出一定的预测效度,其预测效度往往超出中学成绩所提供的信息。然而,这些测试的使用给申请者和院校带来了负担。它们也可能使某些代表性不足的群体处于不利地位。因此,为了证明采用这些评估的合理性,理想情况下这些评估应该能够预测医生未来的临床能力,而临床能力可以通过临床结果或资格后实践临床考试中的表现来评估。因此,本系统评价旨在整理和评估将这些评估的分数与医生临床能力联系起来的证据。

方法与分析

与利益相关者共同制定的全面检索策略将检索自2000年1月起的八个数据库和灰色文献。研究选择、数据提取、研究质量和偏倚风险评估将由两位作者独立进行。将采用叙述性综合分析来评估和整合纳入研究的结果。

伦理与传播

无需伦理批准。研究结果将发表在同行评审期刊上,并在相关学术会议上展示。

PROSPERO注册号:该方案已在PROSPERO上预先注册(CRD42024539112)。

相似文献

1
Do cognitively based medical selection assessment scores predict doctors' clinical competency? A protocol for a systematic review.基于认知的医学选拔评估分数能否预测医生的临床能力?一项系统评价方案。
BMJ Open. 2025 Aug 25;15(8):e104028. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-104028.
2
Prescription of Controlled Substances: Benefits and Risks管制药品的处方:益处与风险
3
Education support services for improving school engagement and academic performance of children and adolescents with a chronic health condition.改善患有慢性病的儿童和青少年的学校参与度和学业成绩的教育支持服务。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Feb 8;2(2):CD011538. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011538.pub2.
4
The educational effects of portfolios on undergraduate student learning: a Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide No. 11.档案袋对本科学生学习的教育效果:最佳证据医学教育(BEME)系统评价。BEME指南第11号。
Med Teach. 2009 Apr;31(4):282-98. doi: 10.1080/01421590902889897.
5
Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.从临床试验参与者中获取不良反应数据。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 16;1(1):MR000039. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000039.pub2.
6
Sexual Harassment and Prevention Training性骚扰与预防培训
7
Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews.改善消费者安全有效用药的干预措施:系统评价概述
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 29;2014(4):CD007768. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007768.pub3.
8
Factors that impact on the use of mechanical ventilation weaning protocols in critically ill adults and children: a qualitative evidence-synthesis.影响重症成人和儿童机械通气撤机方案使用的因素:一项定性证据综合分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 4;10(10):CD011812. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011812.pub2.
9
Technological aids for the rehabilitation of memory and executive functioning in children and adolescents with acquired brain injury.脑损伤儿童和青少年记忆与执行功能康复的技术辅助手段。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jul 1;7(7):CD011020. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011020.pub2.
10
[Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data].[容量与健康结果:来自系统评价和意大利医院数据评估的证据]
Epidemiol Prev. 2013 Mar-Jun;37(2-3 Suppl 2):1-100.

本文引用的文献

1
The Direct Economic and Opportunity Costs of the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) for Canadian Medical Students.医学院入学考试(MCAT)对加拿大医学生的直接经济成本和机会成本
MedEdPublish (2016). 2018 Oct 25;7:243. doi: 10.15694/mep.2018.0000243.1. eCollection 2018.
2
Robust, defensible, and fair: The AMEE guide to selection into medical school: AMEE Guide No. 153.稳健、合理、公平:医学教育者协会选择医学院学生指南:AMEE 指南第 153 号。
Med Teach. 2023 Oct;45(10):1071-1084. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2023.2168529. Epub 2023 Jan 28.
3
The Validity of MCAT Scores in Predicting Students' Performance and Progress in Medical School: Results From a Multisite Study.
MCAT 分数在预测医学生表现和学业进展中的有效性:来自多站点研究的结果。
Acad Med. 2022 Sep 1;97(9):1374-1384. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004754. Epub 2022 May 24.
4
Can achievement at medical admission tests predict future performance in postgraduate clinical assessments? A UK-based national cohort study.医学入学考试成绩能否预测研究生临床评估的未来表现?一项基于英国的全国队列研究。
BMJ Open. 2022 Feb 8;12(2):e056129. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056129.
5
Assessing the predictive validity of the UCAT-A systematic review and narrative synthesis.评估 UCAT-A 的预测有效性:系统评价和叙述性综合。
Med Teach. 2022 Apr;44(4):401-409. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2021.1998401. Epub 2021 Nov 23.
6
UKCAT and medical student selection in the UK - what has changed since 2006?英国大学临床能力倾向测验(UKCAT)与英国医学生选拔——自2006年以来有哪些变化?
BMC Med Educ. 2020 Sep 5;20(1):292. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02214-1.
7
Fitness to practise sanctions in UK doctors are predicted by poor performance at MRCGP and MRCP(UK) assessments: data linkage study.英国医生的行医能力制裁预测依据为 MRCGP 和 MRCP(UK)评估中的表现不佳:数据关联研究。
BMC Med. 2018 Dec 7;16(1):230. doi: 10.1186/s12916-018-1214-4.
8
Do changing medical admissions practices in the UK impact on who is admitted? An interrupted time series analysis.英国改变医疗入学政策对录取者有何影响?一项中断时间序列分析。
BMJ Open. 2018 Oct 8;8(10):e023274. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023274.
9
What is the effect of secondary (high) schooling on subsequent medical school performance? A national, UK-based, cohort study.中等(高中)教育对后续医学院学习表现有何影响?一项基于英国的全国性队列研究。
BMJ Open. 2018 May 23;8(5):e020291. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020291.
10
Testing for medical school selection: What are prospective doctors' experiences and perceptions of the GAMSAT and what are the consequences of testing?医学选拔考试的测试:未来医生对 GAMSAT 的体验和看法是什么,以及测试的后果是什么?
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2018 Aug;23(3):533-546. doi: 10.1007/s10459-018-9811-8. Epub 2018 Jan 31.