Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42564496›Full record

ArticleSA journal of radiology2026

Candidate-related factors associated with success in the Fellowship of the College of Diagnostic Radiologists South Africa Part 2 examination.

Thabokgone Muwezwa, Halvani Moodley, Anushka Ajith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SA journal of radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Thabokgone MuwezwaDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-3106-8657
Halvani MoodleyDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2801-3287
Anushka AjithTeaching and Learning Unit, Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3661-4855

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The examination of the Fellowship of the College of Diagnostic Radiologists South Africa (FC Rad Diag [SA]), conducted by the Colleges of Medicine of South Africa (CMSA), is the national exit examination for qualification as a radiology specialist. There is limited published evidence on South African pass rates and factors influencing success in the FC Rad Diag (SA) Part 2 examination. Objectives: This study aimed to determine the pass rate and factors associated with success in the FC Rad Diag (SA) Part 2 examination. Method: A descriptive quantitative study was conducted using CMSA examination data from 2015 to 2023. Descriptive and inferential analyses were used to assess associations between candidate characteristics and examination outcomes. Results: A total of 377 candidates sat in the examination, with an overall pass rate of 85.7% (323/377). Candidates who failed were older (median age 42 years old [37-47 years] vs. 35 years old [33-38 years]; Conclusion: Success in the FC Rad Diag (SA) Part 2 examination is influenced by multiple candidate-related factors. Contribution: Targeted academic support programmes should focus on candidates at higher risk of failure, particularly those outside formal registrar posts and those with multiple examination attempts, to improve equity and overall specialist throughput nationally.

Indexed as

CMSACOVID-19examinationFC Rad Diagpass ratesuccess rate

Identifiers

PMID42564496
PMCPMC13444424

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.