ArticleMedical education2019
Chest X-ray evaluation training: impact of normal and abnormal image ratio and instructional sequence.
Article in Medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- What works in radiology education for medical students: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2024Pooled it
- Analysing false-positive errors when Australian radiographers use preliminary image evaluation.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Review
- Problem-solving in virtual environment simulations prior to direct instruction for differential diagnosis in medical education: An experimental study.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2022Article
- Image interpretation: Learning analytics-informed education opportunities.AEM education and training · 2021Article
- Corrigendum.Medical education · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrigendum.2019
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextMedical image perception training generally focuses on abnormalities, whereas normal images are more prevalent in medical practice. Furthermore, instructional sequences that let students practice prior to expert instruction (inductive) may lead to improved performance compared with methods that give students expert instruction before practice (deductive). This study investigates the effects of the proportion of normal images and practice-instruction order on learning to interpret medical images. It is hypothesised that manipulation of the proportion of normal images will lead to a sensitivity-specificity trade-off and that students in practice-first (inductive) conditons need more time per practice case but will correctly identify more test cases.
methodsThird-year medical students (n = 103) learned radiograph interpretation by practising cases with, respectively, 30% or 70% normal radiographs prior to expert instruction (practice-first order) or after expert instruction (instruction-first order). After training, students performed a test (60% normal) and sensitivity (% of correctly identified abnormal radiographs), specificity (% of correctly identified normal radiographs), diagnostic performance (% of correct diagnoses) and case duration were measured.
resultsThe conditions with 30% of normal images scored higher on sensitivity but the conditions with 70% of normal images scored higher on specificity, indicating a sensitivity and specificity trade-off. Those who participated in inductive conditions took less time per practice case but more per test case. They had similar test sensitivity, but scored lower on test specificity.
conclusionsThe proportion of normal images impacted the sensitivity-specificity trade-off. This trade-off should be an important consideration for the alignment of training with future practice. Furthermore, the deductive conditions unexpectedly scored higher on specificity when participants took less time per case. An inductive approach did not lead to higher diagnostic performance, possibly because participants might already have relevant prior knowledge. Deductive approaches are therefore advised for the training of advanced learners.
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.