ArticleJournal of digital imaging2017
Online Radiology Reporting with Peer Review as a Learning and Feedback Tool in Radiology; Implementation, Validity, and Student Impressions.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incident Reporting System in an Italian University Hospital: A New Tool for Improving Patient Safety.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Peer Feedback on Collaborative Learning Activities in Veterinary Education.Veterinary sciences · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Communicating radiological reports to peers has pedagogical value. Students may be uneasy with the process due to a lack of communication and peer review skills or to their failure to see value in the process. We describe a communication exercise with peer review in an undergraduate veterinary radiology course. The computer code used to manage the course and deliver images online is reported, and we provide links to the executable files. We tested to see if undergraduate peer review of radiological reports has validity and describe student impressions of the learning process. Peer review scores for student-generated radiological reports were compared to scores obtained in the summative multiple choice (MCQ) examination for the course. Student satisfaction was measured using a bespoke questionnaire. There was a weak positive correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.32, p < 0.01) between peer review scores students received and the student scores obtained in the MCQ examination. The difference in peer review scores received by students grouped according to their level of course performance (high vs. low) was statistically significant (p < 0.05). No correlation was found between peer review scores awarded by the students and the scores they obtained in the MCQ examination (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.17, p = 0.14). In conclusion, we have created a realistic radiology imaging exercise with readily available software. The peer review scores are valid in that to a limited degree they reflect student future performance in an examination. Students valued the process of learning to communicate radiological findings but do not fully appreciated the value of peer review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.