Cited by 235Innovations in Medical EducationDiversity and Career in MedicineSurgical Simulation and Training

The subclavian steal phenomenon: A common vascular disorder with rare neurologic deficits

Hennerici, M., Klemm, C., Rautenberg, W.·1988·Neurology

Abstract

This study aimed to quantify core surgical trainee (CST) differential attainment (DA) related to three cohorts; white UK graduate (White UKG) versus black and minority ethnic UKG (BME UKG) versus international medical graduates (IMGs). The primary outcome measures were annual review of competence progression (ARCP) outcome, intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (iMRCS) examination pass and national training number (NTN) selection. Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme (ISCP) portfolios of 264 consecutive CSTs (2010–2017, 168 white UKG, 66 BME UKG, 30 IMG) from a single UK regional post graduate medical region (Wales) were examined. Data collected prospectively over an 8-year time period was analysed retrospectively. ARCP outcomes were similar irrespective of ethnicity or nationality (ARCP outcome 1, white UKG 60.7% vs BME UKG 62.1% vs IMG 53.3%, p=0.395). iMRCS pass rates for white UKG vs BME UKG vs IMG were 71.4% vs 71.2% vs 50.0% (p=0.042), respectively. NTN success rates for white UKG vs BME UKG vs IMG were 36.9% vs 36.4% vs 6.7% (p=0.023), respectively. On multivariable analysis, operative experience (OR 1.002, 95% CI 1.001 to 1.004, p=0.004), bootcamp attendance (OR 2.615, 95% CI 1.403 to 4.871, p=0.002), and UKG (OR 7.081, 95% CI 1.556 to 32.230, p=0.011), were associated with NTN appointment. Although outcomes related to BME DA were equitable, important DA variation was apparent among IMGs, with iMRCS pass 21.4% lower and NTN success sixfold less likely than UKG. Targeted counter measures are required to let equity prevail in UK CST programmes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1212/wnl.38.5.669

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hennerici, M., Klemm, C., & Rautenberg, W.
Affiliations
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
Venue
Neurology
Published
1988-05
Volume
38
Issue
5
Pages
669-669
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W2119374834
Cited by
235
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
9.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
Keywords
subclavian steal syndrome, vertebral artery, subclavian artery, vertebral artery insufficiency, vertebral artery dissection
MeSH terms
Aged, Basilar Artery, Blood Flow Velocity, Brain Ischemia, Ischemic Attack, Transient, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Nervous System Diseases, Regional Blood Flow, Subclavian Steal Syndrome, Vertebral Artery

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review