This audit is for UKMLA candidates — including international graduates who value affordable, notes-plus-questions revision — weighing MediWord as an applied-knowledge-test resource. MediWord covers the AKT and bundles notes and mock papers at a low price; its principal limitation is question style. The bank is described as recall-based, and the real AKT rewards application and management reasoning, so the transfer question is not "how many questions" but "how many of the right kind".
Current-state box (vendor-reported, 19 July 2026)
| Item | MediWord (vendor-reported) |
|---|---|
| Live question count | "3,000+" on one page, "4,000+" in another header — inconsistent; confirm before relying |
| Question style | "Recall-based questions"; clinical-scenario mocks; mapped to the UKMLA content map |
| Components covered | UKMLA AKT and CPSA sections listed (a bank cannot train CPSA performance) |
| AI features | "AI tutor for instant guideline-referenced answers" for final revision |
| Supporting material | "900+ Revision Notes"; "5+ Full Mock Papers" |
| Other exams | MSRA, MRCS, UCAT, MRCP |
| Access / price | 1 month £12; 3 months £25; 4 months £35 |
These are vendor claims from the MediWord site on 19 July 2026. The headline count is internally inconsistent — treat it cautiously and confirm the current figures on the product page.
Exam anchor
The UKMLA applied knowledge test (MSC AKT for UK students; PLAB 1 for IMGs) is built on the GMC MLA content map, updated for the 2026 cycle and applying to all MLA assessments from September 2026, with the separate CPSA assessing clinical and professional skills. The official coverage target is the content map; a vendor's "mapped to the content map" claim is a starting point to verify, not a guarantee. Crucially, the AKT is an application test — items typically ask for the best next step, the most appropriate management or the most likely diagnosis given a scenario — so recall-first question writing has a built-in transfer gap.
The count, broken down by domain
Do not take the headline total at face value, and not only because it is reported inconsistently. A single number tells you nothing about distribution. What transfers is coverage across the content map's areas of clinical practice, so the useful audit is to record how MediWord's questions actually fall across paediatrics, mental health, ethics-and-law, prescribing and calculation, image and data interpretation, and the acute presentations — not to trust "3,000+" or "4,000+" as a coverage claim. MediWord does not publish a per-domain breakdown, so you have to build it yourself from your attempt log. Our blueprint-coverage-matrix method is the tool; the GMC content map is the reference.
Sample question style: what actually transfers
Style is where this bank lives or dies for exam transfer. Audit a stratified sample against five dimensions:
- Recall versus application. A recall item asks "what is X"; an application item asks "what would you do next for this patient". The AKT is dominated by the latter. If MediWord's items skew recall — as the vendor's own "recall-based" description suggests — they build factual foundation but under-train the reasoning the exam scores.
- Stem length and realism. AKT stems are short clinical vignettes. Very short factual stems train recognition, not the reading-and-deciding the exam requires.
- Option plausibility. Good AKT distractors are all plausible, forcing discrimination. If the wrong options are obviously wrong, the item over-rewards elimination.
- Image and data interpretation. ECGs, imaging, blood results and charts appear in the real exam. Check whether they are present in adequate numbers or thin.
- Management sequencing. "What is the most appropriate next step" items test prioritisation. These are the highest-transfer items; count them.
The honest reading of a recall-weighted bank is that it is a good foundation-builder and a poor final-transfer tool — useful early, insufficient alone late.
A concrete contrast makes the gap visible. A recall item might ask, "which antibody is most associated with systemic lupus erythematosus?" — a single fact, retrieved or not. An AKT-style application item takes the same territory but asks, "a 28-year-old woman with a malar rash, arthralgia and proteinuria is best served by which next investigation?" — you must recognise the picture, prioritise, and choose among plausible options under time pressure. A bank heavy on the first type can leave you word-perfect on associations and still slow and uncertain on the second, which is exactly what the exam scores. When you audit MediWord's sample, count how many items would survive being rewritten as a management-sequencing question; the proportion that would not is a fair estimate of your transfer gap.
Jurisdiction and recency
Check a stratified sample against current UK guidance (NICE, CKS, SIGN, the SmPC/eMC and NHS content), because affordable banks can lag revisions and international candidates need the UK-localised answer, not a generically reasonable one. Record the date you reviewed the sample, so a future reader knows how fresh your check is; on this audit the sample was reviewed on 19 July 2026. Where the "AI tutor" gives a guideline-referenced answer, treat the cited guideline as the authority and the model as the lookup, not the arbiter.
The format gap
State it plainly: a standard Q-bank cannot prepare a candidate for CPSA/OSCE performance, and MediWord listing "CPSA" sections does not change that — reading about stations is not the same as being observed performing them. A bank also cannot verify UK guideline provenance for you (you must check the source), and "mapped to the content map" is a claim to audit, not a coverage certificate. Use MediWord for the knowledge layer only, and put CPSA practice on a separate, observed track.
Duplication and contamination
Cheap, high-volume banks are prone to repeated concepts and near-duplicate stems, and the risk is that "completing the bank" becomes recognising the bank. If you can predict the answer from the first line because you have seen the concept ten times, you are measuring memory of MediWord, not readiness for the exam. Watch for it, and keep your readiness measurement on unseen items elsewhere so recognition cannot inflate your signal.
Best-fit matrix: where this bank is strongest
| Use case | MediWord fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Foundation building | Strong | Recall items and 900+ notes consolidate facts cheaply |
| First pass, early | Reasonable | Volume and low cost for broad first exposure |
| Second bank (measurement) | Weak | Recall-weighted; better measured on application items elsewhere |
| Retake with pacing/application errors | Weak | Does not train the applied reasoning the retake needs |
| Final simulation | Weak | Style and count do not reproduce a blueprint-representative timed paper |
The pattern is consistent: MediWord is a foundation-and-first-pass resource, not a final-transfer or measurement tool.
Reading your results: three mistakes this audit is designed to stop
First, trusting an inconsistent headline count as coverage — audit distribution, not totals. Second, mistaking a high MediWord score for readiness when the items are recall-weighted and possibly recognised — the AKT rewards application. Third, believing that a "CPSA section" in a Q-bank prepares you for the OSCE — it does not; that needs observed practice.
A seven-day plan: MediWord for one job, iatroX for the other
For an international graduate balancing content review with UK conventions, use MediWord for foundation-and-localisation and iatroX for unseen, application-focused measurement. No proprietary-algorithm claims are made for either.
| Day | MediWord (foundation and localisation) | iatroX (unseen measurement) |
|---|---|---|
| Mon | Notes plus recall questions in a weak area | — |
| Tue | Re-derive misses against current UK guidance | — |
| Wed | Notes plus questions, second weak area | — |
| Thu | Forced image/data and calculation items | — |
| Fri | Localisation ledger; log residual gaps | — |
| Sat | — | 90-item unseen, timed, application-focused mixed block |
| Sun | Light review of error themes | Log the unseen trend point |
MediWord does the affordable foundation-and-notes job; iatroX supplies the unseen, application-weighted measurement that a recall bank cannot give.
Decision checklist: continue, supplement, switch or stop
- Continue in an early foundation phase if MediWord is closing knowledge gaps cheaply.
- Supplement with an application-focused, unseen bank as you move from learning to transfer — this is the main recommendation for later-stage candidates.
- Switch primary bank if your errors are application and management-sequencing errors that a recall bank will not fix.
- Stop when new MediWord questions surface no new gaps and your recognition of its items is rising; move to timed unseen papers.
Bottom line
MediWord is a low-cost, notes-plus-questions foundation resource with honest positioning as recall-based revision — good early, and good value. Its transfer to the AKT is limited by that same recall weighting and by an inconsistent headline count, and it cannot touch the CPSA. Use it to build facts, verify its currency against UK sources yourself, and measure your readiness on unseen, application-focused items elsewhere.
Frequently asked questions
Is MediWord enough for UKMLA on its own? For early foundation-building, its questions and 900+ notes can carry you a long way cheaply, but it is not enough on its own for exam transfer: the AKT rewards application and management reasoning that a recall-weighted bank under-trains, and MediWord cannot prepare you for the CPSA. Treat it as a foundation layer and add application-focused, unseen measurement plus separate observed CPSA practice.
Which UKMLA component does MediWord not reproduce well? Two. It does not reproduce the CPSA — no Q-bank does, and listing CPSA sections does not change that. And it under-reproduces the applied, management-sequencing style of the AKT itself, because the bank is described as recall-based, so high MediWord scores may not transfer to an application-heavy paper.
How many MediWord questions should I complete per day for UKMLA? Let your coverage gaps set the number rather than a daily target, and weight your time toward the application and image/calculation items that transfer, plus the notes for weak topics. In a foundation phase, a focused set fully analysed beats grinding volume; as you approach the exam, cut MediWord volume in favour of timed unseen mocks.
When should I stop using MediWord and move to mixed mocks? Move to unseen, timed, mixed mocks once your foundational knowledge is broadly in place and you notice you are recognising MediWord's items rather than reasoning through them. Keep the notes for reference, but stop treating a rising recall-bank score as readiness — the mocks, on application items, are the honest measure.
How should I combine MediWord with iatroX without duplicating practice? Assign non-overlapping jobs: MediWord for affordable foundation-and-notes and UK-guideline localisation; iatroX for unseen, timed, application-focused measurement of transfer. Do not re-answer a MediWord item inside iatroX — keep the measurement bank unseen so recognition cannot inflate it. Our two-Q-bank rule explains how to run two banks without duplicating content or wrecking calibration.
Editorial notes and references
Written by Dr Kolawole Tytler, NHS GP and founder of iatroX. Last checked 19 July 2026. Question counts, prices and feature names are vendor-reported (MediWord, 19 July 2026) and the headline count was internally inconsistent on that date — confirm current figures on the product page before relying on them. Disclosure: iatroX operates a competing UKMLA question bank; this audit confines iatroX's role to a job MediWord does not claim — unseen, timed, application-focused measurement — rather than to affordable foundation content or notes. Corrections are welcome via the feedback route on iatrox.com.
References: MediWord (mediword.com / mediword.co.uk); GMC, Medical Licensing Assessment and MLA content map (gmc-uk.org); NICE, CKS, SIGN, SmPC/eMC and NHS content for recency checks; iatroX, "Your Q-Bank Percentage Is Not Your Exam Score" (https://www.iatrox.com/blog/qbank-percentage-not-your-exam-score); iatroX, "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); iatroX comparison hub (https://www.iatrox.com/compare).