ReviewCureus2023
The Effects of Various Teaching Methods on Chest X-ray Interpretation Skills Among Medical Students and Interns: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- From image to clinical judgment: a randomized near-peer teaching trial on systematic chest radiograph interpretation.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Acceptance and use of GenAI among medical and health sciences students in Saudi Arabia: an extended TAM study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Teaching radiology in undergraduate programmes in medical schools in francophone sub-Saharan Africa : a multicenter survey.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Article
- Feasibility of teleguided training of retinal laser photocoagulation to optimize education of ophthalmology residents.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chest X-ray (CXR) is a common tool used in medical practice. Medical students and interns should acquire knowledge of CXR interpretation, as it is an essential diagnostic tool for a large spectrum of diseases. This systematic review aimed to compare the effect of different intervention techniques on the competency of medical students and interns to demonstrate the level of confidence and competence in interpreting common presentations of CXRs. The population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) framework was used to formulate the review question. All related articles in five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Medline, and Embase) were retrieved and the search was completed in March 2023 with no limiters on date and time. The number of relevant studies was 469. A multi-level approach through the Rayyan platform was used for the screening and exclusion processes. Eleven articles were included in the systematic review consisting of eight randomized controlled trials, one quasi-experimental study, one cross-sectional study, and one interventional cohort. Results showed significant effects of teaching methods utilizing deductive or inductive approach, clinical history, patient care comfort survey, and SAFMEDS (Say-All-Fast-Minute-Every-Day-Shuffled). Contrarily, no significant effect was shown by flipped classroom models and mixed and blocked practice, peer-assisted learning vs. expert-assisted learning, and Chester, an artificial intelligence tool. This review identified beneficial approaches that may enhance the learning outcomes of interpreting CXRs for medical students and interns, highlighting the remarkable impact of SAFMEDS on medical students' ability to identify CXR findings as well as the availability and practicality of online and e-learning resources for students.
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.