RESUMEN
Background: The management of medical student examinations has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, necessitating measures to prevent overcrowding at the entry/exit flow line of the examination room. Specifically, one method to mitigate congestion at the examination room exit is to allow students to leave early after completing their exams.Methods: This study utilized the regular final examination in emergency medicine for fourth-year medical students at Hirosaki University. Students were permitted to leave the room early, up until 20 minutes before the 60-minute examination period concluded. We included 130 participants in the study and conducted a multiple logistic regression analysis with the test score (higher (1) or lower (0) than the average score) as the dependent variable and the presence or absence of early withdrawal, gender, bachelor transfer status, and regional quota student status as independent variables.Results: Of the 130 fourth-year medical students included in the study, 14 (10.8%) left the exam room early. The multiple logistic regression analysis indicated that bachelor transfer students (odds ratio (OR) = 4.20, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.24-14.18) and female students (OR = 2.56, 95%CI 1.24-5.25) tended to achieve statistically significantly higher scores. However, early leavers (OR = 1.78, 95%CI 0.53-5.95) and regional quota students (OR = 1.72, 95%CI 0.78-3.78) did not exhibit a significant association with the highest scores.Discussion: We found that there is no significant association between early exit of medical students and exam scores in our emergency medicine examinations. Therefore, implementing early dismissal can be justified as a measure to ensure a smooth flow of students when leaving the room.
RESUMEN
The Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery launched the clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary tract cancers (cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, and ampullary cancer) in 2007, then published the 2nd version in 2014. In this 3rd version, clinical questions (CQs) were proposed on six topics. The recommendation, grade for recommendation, and statement for each CQ were discussed and finalized by an evidence-based approach. Recommendations were graded as grade 1 (strong) or grade 2 (weak) according to the concepts of the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation system. The 31 CQs covered the six topics: (1) prophylactic treatment, (2) diagnosis, (3) biliary drainage, (4) surgical treatment, (5) chemotherapy, and (6) radiation therapy. In the 31 CQs, 14 recommendations were rated strong and 14 recommendations weak. The remaining three CQs had no recommendation. Each CQ includes a statement of how the recommendations were graded. This latest guideline provides recommendations for important clinical aspects based on evidence. Future collaboration with the cancer registry will be key for assessing the guidelines and establishing new evidence.