This workflow is for UK finalists and international medical graduates using MedRevisions for the UKMLA applied knowledge test — the MSC AKT for UK students, PLAB 1 for IMGs — who want its adaptive analytics to sharpen revision rather than quietly steer them away from thinly practised areas. It addresses the written knowledge component only. The principal limitation to design around: any personalised feed optimises for your overall score, and a rising overall score can hide whole blueprint domains you have barely attempted.
What MedRevisions offers for UKMLA right now
The figures below are vendor-reported and last checked on 19 July 2026; confirm them on the MedRevisions product page before subscribing, as counts and prices change.
- Coverage: MedRevisions markets a combined UKMLA and PLAB 1 question bank aligned to the 2026 MLA content map, with a vendor-reported 5,400+ questions.
- Adaptive and AI features: a "MedRevisions AI Professor" assistant, "Smart Analytics" reporting performance by areas of clinical practice, "Weakness Mocks" that reuse missed material on a spaced-repetition basis, an AI study assistant that generates a study plan targeting weak areas, and a "Study Essential Mode" that filters to a vendor-reported ~1,800 high-yield questions.
- Mocks: a vendor-reported 30+ full-length mock exams timed to the real paper.
- Access and price: subscription-based, vendor-reported from around $10.99 per month at the time of checking, with GBP pricing and access length to confirm on the product page.
- Components: it addresses the applied knowledge test only. Like any MCQ bank it does not reproduce the separate clinical and professional skills assessment (CPSA), the practical OSCE-style component.
The exam anchor
The UKMLA has two parts. The applied knowledge test is delivered as the MSC AKT for UK medical students and as PLAB 1 (180 single-best-answer questions in 3 hours) for international graduates, both built on the GMC's MLA content map, which was updated in January 2026 and applies from September 2026. The map is organised around areas of clinical practice, presentations and conditions. The second part, the CPSA, is a separate practical assessment run by medical schools or, for IMGs, as PLAB 2. Pace on the written test is roughly one minute per item. The distinction that matters for this workflow: the official content map is the blueprint you are accountable to, and a vendor's internal topic tags are a convenience, not the same thing.
Baseline week: measure before you personalise
Before you let any algorithm shape your feed, produce a fixed reference point. In the first week, sit a small, timed, blueprint-stratified sample — a fixed number of unseen items drawn evenly across the MLA areas of clinical practice — and record your first-attempt accuracy by domain. This is your baseline. Do it once, do it timed, and do not repeat those exact items, because their value is that they are unseen. The reason to measure first is simple: once "Smart Analytics" and "Weakness Mocks" start reordering your practice, your headline accuracy will climb for reasons that have nothing to do with new learning, and you will have lost the clean starting line.
First pass: set domain floors
The core risk with an adaptive feed is that it concentrates on what you are already engaging with and lets untouched areas stay untouched while the overall number rises. Neutralise it with domain floors. Before you begin, commit to a minimum number of first-attempt items in every MLA area — for example, no domain below a set floor before you allow the feed to weight toward your weak spots. Use MedRevisions' areas-of-clinical-practice analytics to check attempted volume per domain, not just accuracy, and manually pull in the neglected areas. The adaptive engine can decide the order within a domain; you decide that no domain is skipped.
An error taxonomy that changes what you do next
Marking an item wrong tells you nothing useful until you code why. Separate every miss into: knowledge gap (you did not know it), misread stem (you knew it but misread the question), premature closure (you committed before reading the options), guideline error (you used out-of-date or non-UK guidance), calculation error, and time-pressure error (right idea, no time). The code dictates the fix. A knowledge gap earns a short source read and a fresh transfer item; a misread or premature-closure pattern earns a stem-discipline drill, not more content; a guideline error sends you to current NICE or CKS; a time-pressure cluster sends you to timed mixed blocks.
Review interval: not everything deserves a repeat
Decide the review action from the error code rather than repeating every missed question the next day. Knowledge gaps deserve a spaced review and, crucially, a new item testing the same principle rather than the identical question, so that you are measuring understanding and not recall of one vignette. Misreads deserve a technique note and a timed re-test under pressure. Trivial slips deserve nothing more than acknowledgement. Immediate repetition of the same item is the weakest option: it inflates your familiar-item accuracy and teaches you the answer to that stem, not the concept.
When to switch from topic filters to mixed blocks
Topic-filtered practice is a scaffold for the first pass; it also cues you, because you know every cardiology block contains cardiology answers. Set objective criteria for reducing it: once a domain is above its floor and your first-attempt accuracy there is stable across two sessions, retire the filter for that domain and fold it into timed random blocks. As more domains clear, your practice should tilt from filtered to mixed, until the last fortnight is almost entirely timed, mixed, full-length work at exam pace.
Exit criteria
Stop measuring your progress by how much of the bank you have finished. You are ready when your coverage floors are all met, your first-attempt accuracy on unseen items is stable across the blueprint, your full mocks finish inside time, your previously missed items stay corrected on delayed re-testing, and your performance holds up on an official-material calibration. Bank completion is not on that list, because completing a bank measures the bank, not you.
Worked example: an IMG's seven-day week
Consider an international graduate eight weeks from PLAB 1, using MedRevisions for volume and analytics and iatroX for unseen transfer practice. MedRevisions does one defined job here: high-volume, UK-aligned first-pass practice with domain-level analytics. iatroX does a different one: fresh, unseen, NICE/CKS-grounded items to confirm that learning transfers, run without any claim to its internal algorithm.
- Monday: MedRevisions timed block in the weakest MLA area from the baseline; code every miss.
- Tuesday: short source reads on Monday's knowledge gaps; a handful of iatroX unseen items on the same principles.
- Wednesday: MedRevisions block in the second weakest area; check attempted-volume floors in Smart Analytics.
- Thursday: UK-conventions focus — prescribing norms, safety-netting and referral pathways framed for UK practice, where an overseas graduate is most exposed; iatroX unseen items to test transfer.
- Friday: one MedRevisions full mock, timed; record completion and pacing, not just score.
- Saturday: spaced review of the week's coded misses; delayed re-test of earlier errors.
- Sunday: rest, or a short unseen iatroX block as a clean progress check against the baseline.
Three mistakes this workflow is designed to stop
Three predictable errors sink adaptive-feed revision, and each maps to a step above. The first is letting the overall percentage stand in for readiness: it climbs as you re-see familiar items, which is why domain floors and unseen measurement exist rather than the headline number. The second is treating "Weakness Mocks" as sufficient breadth — spaced repetition of what you missed is not the same as attempting the areas you have never touched, so the attempted-volume audit in your analytics stays essential. The third is repeating a missed item until it feels easy; that trains recognition of one stem, not the underlying concept, which is why the review interval favours a fresh transfer item over an immediate repeat. Read your MedRevisions analytics as a coverage map, not a scoreboard, and these three traps stay shut.
Decision checklist: continue, supplement, switch or stop
- Continue MedRevisions if your unseen domain scores are rising, its analytics are surfacing real gaps and you still have unseen items left.
- Supplement with an unseen measurement source when your MedRevisions percentage is high but you cannot tell how much is familiarity — this is the two-Q-bank rule, adding a second bank for measurement, not duplication.
- Switch if a domain stays below floor despite focused work, which points to an explanation-depth or coverage gap rather than effort.
- Stop adding new questions when every exit criterion is met; revise your misses and rest.
Frequently asked questions
Is MedRevisions enough for UKMLA on its own? For a candidate with sound foundations it can carry the applied-knowledge component as a primary bank, given its vendor-reported breadth and mock volume, but "enough" depends on evidence, not marketing — you are only covered when unseen, timed, domain-level performance is stable, and no single bank reproduces the separate CPSA. Treat it as a strong primary option whose sufficiency you confirm with an external unseen check.
Which UKMLA component does MedRevisions not reproduce well? It does not reproduce the clinical and professional skills assessment, the practical OSCE-style component, because a single-best-answer bank tests written applied knowledge rather than history-taking, examination and communication. It is a workhorse for the applied knowledge test; the CPSA needs supervised, station-based practice.
How many MedRevisions questions should I complete per day for UKMLA? There is no universal number; a sustainable target is one to two timed blocks a day (roughly 40 to 80 items) with full error-coding and review, scaled to your weeks remaining and your other commitments. Quality of review matters more than raw volume — 40 well-coded items beat 120 skimmed ones, and completing the whole bank quickly is not a goal.
When should I stop using MedRevisions and move to mixed mocks? Move the balance toward timed mixed mocks once your domain floors are met and your first-attempt accuracy is stable across the blueprint, typically the final two to three weeks. You do not abandon MedRevisions; you shift from topic-filtered blocks to full-length timed papers, using its 30+ mocks to rehearse pacing and stamina.
How should I combine MedRevisions with iatroX without duplicating practice? Give each a distinct job: MedRevisions for first-pass volume and analytics, iatroX for unseen transfer items that confirm learning has stuck, and never answer the same item twice across the two. Following the two-Q-bank rule keeps your measurement bank clean, so your unseen score reflects understanding rather than recognition of questions you have already met.
Editorial notes and references
Written by Dr Kolawole Tytler, NHS GP and founder of iatroX. Last checked 19 July 2026; MedRevisions' question count, features and pricing are vendor-reported as at that date and should be re-verified on the product page before purchase. Disclosure: iatroX operates a competing UKMLA question bank; in this article its role is confined to unseen transfer measurement, a job the audited product's own analytics cannot perform on itself. No proprietary-algorithm claims are made about either platform. Corrections are welcome via the feedback route on iatrox.com.
References: GMC — Medical Licensing Assessment content map and official UKMLA resources, gmc-uk.org; MedRevisions product pages, medrevisions.com; iatroX UKMLA bank, https://www.iatrox.com/ukmla; "Your Q-Bank Percentage Is Not Your Exam Score", https://www.iatrox.com/blog/qbank-percentage-not-your-exam-score; the two-Q-bank rule, https://www.iatrox.com/blog/the-two-q-bank-rule-how-to-add-a-second-bank-without-duplicating-questions-or-destroying-calibration; and the iatroX comparison hub, https://www.iatrox.com/compare.