This audit is for gastroenterology and hepatology trainees, and international candidates, weighing Licence Medical as an ESEGH question bank and wanting to know what its question style transfers to the real two-paper, best-of-five exam. Licence Medical does publish a European gastroenterology board bank, so it covers the exam. The principal limitation is one of verification: on 21 July 2026 we could not independently confirm its live question count, price or access period, so those figures must be treated as vendor-reported until you check them yourself.
That honesty matters more than usual here. An audit that quotes a question count it cannot verify is worse than useless, because a candidate will plan around a number that may be wrong. So this article audits what we can verify — the exam it targets, the style of question it is built around, and the format gaps any standard bank shares — and tells you plainly which figures to confirm before you buy.
What Licence Medical offers for ESEGH right now
The table records what we could and could not confirm on 21 July 2026. Where a cell says "verify", the provider's product page did not render to our check and the figure should be confirmed on license-medical.com before you rely on it.
| Attribute | Status on 21 July 2026 | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Covers ESEGH / European gastroenterology board | Confirmed (product exists) | Listed as a European Board of Gastroenterology and Hepatology / SCE gastroenterology bank |
| Live question count | Verify (vendor-reported) | Product page did not render to our check; confirm on license-medical.com |
| Price / subscription | Verify (vendor-reported) | Confirm current pricing and any offers directly |
| Access period | Verify (vendor-reported) | Confirm subscription length before purchase |
| AI / adaptive features | Verify (vendor-reported) | Marketed as a "Question Bank CAT"; do not assume a difficulty-adapting algorithm unless stated |
| Endoscopy images / liver-data items | Verify | Confirm depth of image and data questions before relying on it for those formats |
The word "CAT" in a product name does not, by itself, mean the bank adapts question difficulty to your performance. Unless Licence Medical states that its bank adjusts difficulty, treat it as a standard fixed bank with a large item pool, and do not pay a premium for an "adaptive" feature you have not confirmed exists.
The ESEGH exam: what the bank has to transfer to
According to the Federation of Royal Colleges of Physicians (thefederation.uk, verified 21 July 2026), ESEGH is two papers, each three hours, each 100 best-of-five questions — 200 in total, five options, one mark per correct answer, no negative marking, computer-based via Surpass at a test centre. UK candidates are examined against the JRCPTB gastroenterology curriculum; European candidates against the UEMS Blue Book (2017). The 2026 fees were £700 (UK), €800 (ESBGH member countries) and £875 (elsewhere).
The official requirement is what any bank must transfer to: single-best-answer clinical-scenario items across luminal GI, hepatology, pancreaticobiliary disease, nutrition, endoscopy and relevant general medicine, decided under time pressure with no reference material. A bank's job is to build the recall and pattern-recognition that survive those constraints. Marketing claims — "exam-style", "high-yield", "adaptive" — are third-party framing and should be tested against that requirement, not taken at face value.
Look past the headline total
Whatever headline question count Licence Medical advertises, the number that matters is how those questions distribute across the blueprint. A bank of 1,500 questions that is 60% luminal GI and thin on hepatology is not a 1,500-question ESEGH bank; it is a strong luminal-GI bank with a hepatology gap. Before trusting any total, break it down:
| Blueprint domain | Questions you can find in the bank | First-attempt accuracy | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Luminal GI | |||
| Hepatology | |||
| Pancreaticobiliary | |||
| Nutrition | |||
| Endoscopy | |||
| GI malignancy / screening | |||
| General/acute medicine |
Because we could not verify Licence Medical's per-domain distribution, build this table yourself in the first week of use, using the bank's own filters. If a domain has very few items, that is a gap you must fill from another source — not a domain you can skip because "the bank covers it".
What Licence Medical's question style tests
You can audit a bank's style from any accessible sample without knowing its exact size. Judge it against five properties, because these determine whether practice transfers:
- Recall versus application. Does a question ask you to recognise a fact, or to apply it to decide a next step? ESEGH is management-weighted; a bank heavy on pure recall builds a skill the exam under-rewards.
- Stem length and realism. Real ESEGH stems are clinical scenarios with relevant and irrelevant detail. Very short stems train pattern-matching, not the reading discipline the exam requires.
- Option plausibility. In a good best-of-five item all five options are plausible and the discrimination is fine. If the wrong options are obviously wrong, the bank flatters your accuracy and trains nothing.
- Image and data interpretation. Does the bank make you read an endoscopy image, a scan or a liver-function trend, or does it describe the finding in words? The former transfers; the latter does not.
- Management sequencing. Can you order investigation and treatment steps correctly, not just name the diagnosis? ESEGH frequently tests the next step, not the label.
A bank that scores well on plausibility, realistic stems and management sequencing transfers well, whatever its total size. One that is short stems, obvious distractors and word-described findings will inflate your percentage and leave you exposed on exam day.
Jurisdiction and recency
Take a stratified sample across domains and check each item against current guidance, recording the review date. Gastroenterology guidance moves quickly, and a European-oriented bank may or may not track the framework you are examined against. Pay particular attention to hepatitis B and C thresholds, MASLD/MASH terminology and pathways, IBD drug sequencing, and surveillance intervals for Barrett's, colorectal and pancreatic cysts. Where European and UK guidance diverge, confirm that the bank flags which applies. An item that teaches an out-of-date threshold is worse than no item, because it installs a confident wrong answer.
The format gap: images, liver data and guideline differences
State this plainly: no standard text-based Q-bank, Licence Medical included, can fully prepare you for the endoscopy-image, liver-data and European/UK guideline-difference demands of ESEGH. A bank can teach the knowledge behind an endoscopic finding; it cannot, on its own, build the fluent visual recognition that comes from volume of real images, nor the bedside habit of reading a liver panel as a trend. This is a format limitation of the modality, not a criticism of one vendor. The companion article, what MCQ banks cannot prepare you for in ESEGH, sets out how to train those three skills directly. Audit any bank on how much genuine image and data work it contains, and plan to supplement it.
Duplication and contamination
The larger and older a bank, the more its questions repeat concepts under different stems. Some repetition is deliberate and useful — spaced re-exposure. Too much, or near-duplicate stems, turns "completing the bank" into recognition rather than learning: you answer correctly because you remember the item, not because you know the medicine. Watch for the warning sign that your accuracy on reviewed questions is far higher than on fresh ones. When that gap opens, the bank has been memorised, and further passes measure recall of the bank, not of gastroenterology. That is the moment to introduce genuinely unseen questions from another source.
Best-fit matrix
Where does Licence Medical fit in a revision stack? On current evidence, and subject to verifying its live figures, the honest matrix is:
| Use case | Fit | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Foundation building | Possible | Depends on unverified breadth; check per-domain distribution first |
| First-pass primary bank | Reasonable if breadth confirmed | Only if your own coverage table shows every domain adequately represented |
| Second bank | Strong | A distinct item pool adds unseen questions late in preparation |
| Retake resource | Strong | Fresh items you have not memorised are exactly what a retake needs |
| Final simulation | Partial | Useful for volume, but pair with full timed mocks and image/data practice |
The strongest, safest use is as a second bank or a retake resource, where fresh volume is the asset. As a sole first-pass bank, its fit depends entirely on breadth you must verify yourself.
A seven-day plan for trainees revising around clinical work
This plan uses Licence Medical for one defined job — building and testing recall across the blueprint — and iatroX for unseen transfer measurement, with no proprietary-algorithm claims. It assumes an hour on weekdays and longer at the weekend.
| Day | Licence Medical job | iatroX job (unseen transfer) | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mon | 25 items in weakest domain, timed | 15 unseen items on the same concepts | Coded errors |
| Tue | 25 items, mixed | 15 unseen items, mixed | Coverage-table update |
| Wed | 20 image/data items | 10 unseen data items | Format-gap check |
| Thu | Review Monday's misses (no new) | 20 items repeating Mon concepts, new stems | Transfer check |
| Fri | 25 items, timed | 15 unseen items, timed | Speed under fatigue |
| Sat | 50-item timed block | 25 unseen items, timed | Weekly readiness read |
| Sun | Rest or light error review | Optional confidence check | Next week's target |
The division of labour prevents duplication: Licence Medical builds and drills; iatroX measures whether the learning transfers to items you have never seen. Use the iatroX comparison hub if you want to slot a dedicated specialty bank into the "build" role instead.
Continue, supplement, switch or stop
Decide on measurable gaps, not novelty or sunk cost:
- Continue if your first-attempt accuracy across domains is rising and per-domain coverage is filling.
- Supplement with a dedicated specialty bank or image resource if a stratified sample shows a domain or format Licence Medical under-serves.
- Switch primary bank only if verification shows the content is out of date against current guidance, or your reviewed-versus-fresh accuracy gap shows you have memorised it.
- Stop new questions in any domain that is stable and high on fresh items, and redirect the time to a weaker domain or to full timed simulation.
The bottom line
Licence Medical is a legitimate ESEGH option: it targets the European gastroenterology board exam and can add real value, particularly as a second bank or a retake resource where fresh volume matters. Its question style transfers to the extent that it favours plausible distractors, realistic stems and management sequencing over short-stem recall — audit your sample on those properties. What does not transfer from any standard bank is fluent endoscopy-image and liver-data interpretation and the European/UK guideline nuance, which you must train separately. And before you plan around any headline number, verify Licence Medical's live question count, price and access period on its own site, because on 21 July 2026 we could not confirm them independently.
Frequently asked questions
Is Licence Medical enough for ESEGH on its own? Possibly, but only if you first verify that its live question count is large enough and that its per-domain distribution covers the whole blueprint — neither of which we could confirm independently on 21 July 2026. Even a broad, current bank leaves the endoscopy-image and liver-data formats under-trained, so most candidates will pair it with image-and-data practice and a source of unseen questions late on. Build your coverage table in the first week and let it, not the marketing, tell you whether one bank suffices.
Which ESEGH component does Licence Medical not reproduce well? Like any standard text-based bank, it cannot fully reproduce the fluent interpretation of endoscopy images and liver-data trends under time pressure, and it will not, on its own, train the European-versus-UK guideline discrimination the exam uses as a trap. It can teach the knowledge behind those items, but the visual fluency and the bedside habit of reading data as a pattern come from volume of real images and cases, which a word-based bank does not supply.
How many Licence Medical questions should I complete per day for ESEGH? A sustainable target for a trainee working clinically is around 40 to 60 questions per day, split between one focused domain and a mixed block, always reviewed and error-coded rather than merely counted. Doing 150 questions you do not review is worse than doing 40 you dissect. Prioritise first-attempt accuracy on unseen items over raw volume, and slow down if your reviewed-versus-fresh accuracy gap starts to widen, because that signals memorisation rather than learning.
When should I stop using Licence Medical and move to mixed mocks? Move your centre of gravity to full, timed, mixed mocks in the final three to four weeks, once your per-domain first-attempt accuracy is stable. Keep Licence Medical for targeted top-ups on domains that remain weak, but at that stage the binding constraint is stamina, pacing and switching between domains across two three-hour papers — which single-topic drilling does not train. If your fresh-block accuracy is stable and high, the marginal value of more new questions is low, and simulation is the better use of time.
How should I combine Licence Medical with iatroX without duplicating practice? Give them different jobs. Use Licence Medical as the specialty-facing build-and-drill bank, and use iatroX as the general UK/MRCP-level unseen-MCQ layer that measures whether learning transfers to new stems and holds up over time with spaced retrieval. Because iatroX is not a specialty ESEGH bank, its items will not duplicate Licence Medical's specialty content — they will test it in a different form. Apply the two-Q-bank rule so the second source adds unseen coverage rather than repeating the first.
Editorial notes and references
Written by Dr Kolawole Tytler, NHS GP and founder of iatroX. Last checked 21 July 2026. Licence Medical's live question count, price, access period and feature set are vendor-reported and could not be independently verified on that date because the product pages did not render to our check; confirm all such figures on license-medical.com before relying on them, and treat any "adaptive/CAT" claim as unverified unless the vendor states difficulty adaptation explicitly. Exam-format facts are from the Federation of Royal Colleges of Physicians. Disclosure: iatroX operates a competing question bank; in this audit its role is confined to unseen-MCQ measurement and spaced retrieval — jobs Licence Medical does not claim — and it is not presented as a specialty-specific ESEGH bank. Corrections are welcome via the feedback route on iatrox.com.
References: the Federation ESEGH page (thefederation.uk); Licence Medical gastroenterology/European board bank (license-medical.com — verify figures); the ESEGH content-gap checklist; Your Q-Bank Percentage Is Not Your Exam Score; the iatroX comparison hub.