This is not a good quality article from the point of statistics.
-
This is not a good quality article from the point of statistics.
The main statistical claim is that OE fails 9% of the times on USMLE. If you want to form a reasonable conclusion from that you need to compare it to control. The control here would be the fail rate of an average doctor. Or to be frank maybe better control would be the fail rate of a bad doctor because if OE beats that then there is an arguement to be made that there are people who OE could help.
Passing grade os USMLE Clinical Knowledge exam is 214/300 and mean score is 246. Idk the specific scoring but if it is scored the usual way then I believe this article is overly dramatic
-
System shared this topic on
-
This is not a good quality article from the point of statistics.
The main statistical claim is that OE fails 9% of the times on USMLE. If you want to form a reasonable conclusion from that you need to compare it to control. The control here would be the fail rate of an average doctor. Or to be frank maybe better control would be the fail rate of a bad doctor because if OE beats that then there is an arguement to be made that there are people who OE could help.
Passing grade os USMLE Clinical Knowledge exam is 214/300 and mean score is 246. Idk the specific scoring but if it is scored the usual way then I believe this article is overly dramatic
It would have to be the fail rate of an average doctor, because if average doctors are the use case then moving the bar to fail rate of a bad doctor doesn't make any sense. You would end up saying worse outcomes = better.
I think the missing piece here is accountability.
If doctors are being encouraged to give harmful out-of-date advice, who will end up with a class action lawsuit on their hands - doctors or OE?
-
System shared this topic on
