Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32435929›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2020

Effectiveness of the clinical decision support tool ESR eGUIDE for teaching medical students the appropriate selection of imaging tests: randomized cross-over evaluation.

Torsten Diekhoff, Franz Kainberger, Laura Oleaga, Marc Dewey, Elke Zimmermann

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Torsten DiekhoffDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Freie Universitat Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Franz KainbergerDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Freie Universitat Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Laura OleagaDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Freie Universitat Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Marc DeweyDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Freie Universitat Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. marc.dewey@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4402-2733
Elke ZimmermannDepartment of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Freie Universitat Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Prof. Dewey has received grant support from the Heisenberg Program of the DFG (DE 1361/14-1).
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate ESR eGUIDE-the European Society of Radiology (ESR) e-Learning tool for appropriate use of diagnostic imaging modalities-for learning purposes in different clinical scenarios.

methodsThis anonymized evaluation was performed after approval of ESR Education on Demand leadership. Forty clinical scenarios were developed in which at least one imaging modality was clinically most appropriate, and the scenarios were divided into sets 1 and 2. These sets were provided to medical students randomly assigned to group A or B to select the most appropriate imaging test for each scenario. Statistical comparisons were made within and across groups.

resultsOverall, 40 medical students participated, and 31 medical students (78%) answered both sets. The number of correctly chosen imaging methods per set in these 31 paired samples was significantly higher when answered with versus without use of ESR eGUIDE (13.7 ± 2.6 questions vs. 12.1 ± 3.2, p = 0.012). Among the students in group A, who first answered set 1 without ESR eGUIDE (11.1 ± 3.2), there was significant improvement when set 2 was answered with ESR eGUIDE (14.3 ± 2.5, p = 0.013). The number of correct answers in group B did not drop when set 2 was answered without ESR eGUIDE (12.4 ± 2.6) after having answered set 1 first with ESR eGUIDE (13.0 ± 2.7, p = 0.66).

conclusionThe clinical decision support tool ESR eGUIDE is suitable for training medical students in choosing the best radiological imaging modality in typical scenarios, and its use in teaching radiology can thus be recommended. KEY POINTS: • ESR eGUIDE improved the number of appropriately selected imaging modalities among medical students. • This improvement was also seen in the group of students which first selected imaging tests without ESR eGUIDE. • In the student group which used ESR eGUIDE first, appropriate selection remained stable even without the teaching tool.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalDiagnostic ImagingStudents, MedicalCross-Over StudiesEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, UndergraduateEuropeHumansLearningRadiographyRadiologyTeachingUser-Computer InterfaceClinical decision support systemsDiagnostic imagingLearningMedical studentsRandom allocation

Identifiers

PMID32435929
PMCPMC7476994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.