Skip to main content
MedVellum
QuestionsVideosPricing

MedVellum

Fellowship exam preparation across every specialty: source-verified topics, questions in every format, and videos.

Product

  • Specialties
  • Questions
  • Videos
  • Exam tools
  • Pricing

Verification & policy

  • Verified register
  • Editorial policy
  • Privacy
  • Terms

Account

  • Sign in
  • Create account
  • Dashboard
  • Account & billing

© 2026 MedVellum. For education only — not a substitute for clinical judgement.

llms.txtPsychiatry LLM catalogSitemap

Psych VivasProfessional practice — critical appraisal and EBM

Psych Vivas · Professional practice — critical appraisal and EBM

Critical appraisal — structured clinical viva

Fellowship viva covering RCT appraisal, effect interpretation, applicability, and EBM toolkit follow-ups.

clinical1 min readVerification in progress

Target exams

FRANZCPMRCPsychABPNMD-DNB
On this page
Study tools

Target exams

FRANZCPMRCPsychABPNMD-DNB
Prompt
You are in a FRANZCP/MRCPsych-style viva. The examiner hands you a one-page abstract of a multi-centre double-blind RCT of a new second-generation antipsychotic versus haloperidol for acute schizophrenia (N=420). Primary outcome: change in PANSS total at 6 weeks. Secondary: extrapyramidal side-effect scales and all-cause discontinuation. Results: mean PANSS difference −4.1 (95% CI −7.0 to −1.2), p=0.006; EPS less with the new drug; discontinuation similar. Industry funded; analysis ITT; allocation concealment via central interactive voice system; outcome assessors blinded. The examiner asks you to appraise validity, results, and whether you would change practice for a first-episode patient. Be prepared for follow-ups on NNT, forest plots, GRADE, and absence of evidence.

Interpretation

Reveal interpretationShowHide

Validity (strong relative to many psychopharmacology trials). Central concealment, double-blind design with blinded assessors, ITT, and multi-centre recruitment support internal validity on RoB 2 domains for randomisation, deviations, and outcome measurement — still probe missing data rates and selective reporting of secondaries.[2] Industry funding is a conflict to name, not an automatic veto; look for independent analysis and pre-registration.

Results. Statistically significant mean PANSS difference with CI excluding zero; magnitude (−4 points) may be below some proposed MCIDs — discuss clinical importance separately from p-value. Prefer dichotomous outcomes (response/remission) and absolute differences if available for NNT framing.[3] EPS benefit is clinically meaningful if scales and rates are robust; similar discontinuation is not proof of equal overall tolerability — absence of difference ≠ equivalence without a proper non-inferiority design and powering.[6]

Applicability. First-episode patients may differ from chronic multi-episode samples; duration 6 weeks is acute, not long-term metabolic risk; shared decision-making must include metabolic monitoring, patient values (EPS vs weight), and cost. Place this trial against the broader meta-analytic landscape of SGA vs FGA trade-offs rather than a single abstract.[5][1]

GRADE language. Moderate certainty if only minor concerns remain (industry, short duration, continuous primary); strong recommendation for this specific drug over haloperidol would require larger absolute benefits, longer outcomes, and consistency across studies.[4]

Psychiatry Fellowship Pro

Continue reading

You have read the opening of this viva. The complete unit — every section and its primary-source references — is part of the Psychiatry Fellowship fellowship library.

Sign in to continueSee pricing
References6ShowHide
  1. [1]Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't BMJ, 1996.PMID 8555924
  2. [2]Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ, 2019.PMID 31462531
  3. [3]Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment N Engl J Med, 1988.PMID 3374545
  4. [4]Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations BMJ, 2008.PMID 18436948
  5. [5]Leucht S, Corves C, Arbter D, Engel RR, Li C, Davis JM Second-generation versus first-generation antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia: a meta-analysis Lancet, 2009.PMID 19058842
  6. [6]Altman DG, Bland JM Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence BMJ, 1995.PMID 7647644
Psychiatry Fellowship Pro

$29/ monthor $279 / year

The complete Psychiatry Fellowship library, every exam format, one subscription.

  • Complete library for one chosen specialty
  • Timed MCQ mock exams and spaced review
  • Clinical cases & cross-table vivas
See pricingSign in
PreviousConduct and oppositional disorders — structured clinical vivaChild and adolescent psychiatry — disruptive behaviourNextCultural formulation and Indigenous mental health — structured clinical vivaProfessional — cultural formulation and Indigenous mental health