ArticleAEM education and training2021
Cognitive load and processes during chest radiograph interpretation in the emergency department across the spectrum of expertise.
Article in AEM education and training, 2021. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medical Dispute Cases Caused by Errors in Clinical Reasoning: An Investigation and Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Cognitive load and processes during chest radiograph interpretation in the emergency department across the spectrum of expertise.AEM education and training · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the emergency department (ED), chest radiographs (CXRs) provide essential information for clinical diagnostic reasoning. Errors in interpretation by emergency physicians can lead to negative patient outcomes. To aid in teaching this important skill, an understanding of cognitive processes and cognitive load (CL) in CXR interpretation in emergency medicine (EM) personnel is warranted.
methodsThis study adopted a concurrent mixed-methods research design. Participant groups included medical students (M), junior (J) and senior (S) EM residents, and attending emergency physicians (P) in the ED at an academic hospital. To elucidate cognitive processes, a real-time cognitive task analysis during CXR interpretation was performed. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically. The interview was followed by a questionnaire, where participants rated their CL, stress, and confidence level.
resultsLevels of CL (M vs. S and M vs. P, p = 0.002; J vs. S, p
conclusionThis study characterized differences in cognition that led to increased CL, stress, and lower level of confidence in EM learners during CXR interpretation and provided insight into expertise development in this important skill.
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.