Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38200489›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical education2024

What works in radiology education for medical students: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Stuart W T Wade, Gary M Velan, Nicodemus Tedla, Nancy Briggs, Michelle Moscova

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Learning Anatomy With Radiology: A Systematic Review.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Simulation-Based Training in Dental Radiography: The Impact of Qbion Software on Learning Outcomes for Dentistry Students.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. MEDI-SLATE: medical imaging slide-lecture aligned teaching ensemble.Visual computing for industry, biomedicine, and art · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Digital redesign of the radiotherapy course for medical students with a blended learning approach.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025
    Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Stuart W T WadeWestmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Gary M VelanSchool of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine & Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4535-6663
Nicodemus TedlaSchool of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine & Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8226-8064
Nancy BriggsStats Central, Mark Wainwright Analytical Centre, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1134-0807
Michelle MoscovaOffice of Medical Education, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. m.moscova@unsw.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7186-4242

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical imaging related knowledge and skills are widely used in clinical practice. However, radiology teaching methods and resultant knowledge among medical students and junior doctors is variable. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the impact of different components of radiology teaching methods (active versus passive teaching, eLearning versus traditional face-to-face teaching) on radiology knowledge / skills of medical students.

methodsPubMed and Scopus databases were searched for articles published in English over a 15-year period ending in June 2021 quantitatively comparing the effectiveness of undergraduate medical radiology education programs regarding acquisition of knowledge and/or skills. Study quality was appraised by the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) scoring and analyses performed to assess for risk of bias. A random effects meta-analysis was performed to pool weighted effect sizes across studies and I

resultsFrom 3,052 articles, 40 articles involving 6,242 medical students met inclusion criteria. Median MERSQI score of the included articles was 13 out of 18 possible with moderate degree of heterogeneity (I

conclusionsStudies of educational interventions are inherently heterogeneous and contextual, typically tailored to specific groups of students. Thus, we could not draw definitive conclusion about effectiveness of the various radiology education interventions based on the currently available data. Better standardisation in the design and implementation of radiology educational interventions and design of radiology education research are needed to understand aspects of educational design and delivery that are optimal for learning.

trial registrationProspero registration number CRD42022298607.

Indexed as

RadiologyStudents, MedicalEducational StatusHumansProblem-Based LearningRadiographyMedical imaging educationMedical student educationMedical student radiology educationRadiology teachingUndergraduate radiology education

Identifiers

PMID38200489
PMCPMC10782640

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.