ArticleAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2020
A think-aloud study to inform the design of radiograph interpretation practice.
Article in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Testing that Makes You Think: Development of a Basic Science Test to Promote Future Clinical Learning.Medical science educator · 2026Article
- Distinct visual biases affect humans and artificial intelligence in medical imaging diagnoses.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Education Research: EEG Instruction: Findings from a Scoping Review.Neurology. Education · 2025Article
- Facilitating clinical reasoning for medical students in clinical settings: a scoping review.Korean journal of medical education · 2025Article
- Specialist learning curves and clinical feasibility of introducing a new MRI grading system for skeletal maturity.BJR open · 2024Article
- ESR paper on structured reporting in radiology-update 2023.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- Understanding radiographic decision-making when imaging obese patients: A Think-Aloud study.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2022Article
- Developing a Training Web Application for Improving the COVID-19 Diagnostic Accuracy on Chest X-ray.Journal of digital imaging · 2021Article
- Adaptation and validation of the Berlin questionnaire of competence in evidence-based dentistry for dental students: a pilot study.BMC medical education · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Models for diagnostic reasoning in radiology have been based on the observed behaviors of experienced radiologists but have not directly focused on the thought processes of novices as they improve their accuracy of image interpretation. By collecting think-aloud verbal reports, the current study was designed to investigate differences in specific thought processes between medical students (novices) as they learn and radiologists (experts), so that we can better design future instructional environments. Seven medical students and four physicians with radiology training were asked to interpret and diagnose pediatric elbow radiographs where fracture is suspected. After reporting their diagnosis of a case, they were given immediate feedback. Participants were asked to verbalize their thoughts while completing the diagnosis and while they reflected on the provided feedback. The protocol analysis of their verbalizations showed that participants used some combination of four processes to interpret the case: gestalt interpretation, purposeful search, rule application, and reasoning from a prior case. All types of processes except reasoning from a prior case were applied significantly more frequently by experts. Further, gestalt interpretation was used with higher frequency in abnormal cases while purposeful search was used more often for normal cases. Our assessment of processes could help guide the design of instructional environments with well-curated image banks and analytics to facilitate the novice's journey to expertise in image interpretation.
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.