ArticleBMC medical education2024
Using PACS for teaching radiology to undergraduate medical students.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative effectiveness of orthopedic teaching methods in China: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized trials.BMC medical education · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraditional radiology education for medical students predominantly uses textbooks, PowerPoint files, and hard-copy radiographic images, which often lack student interaction. PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication System) is a crucial tool for radiologists in viewing and reporting images, but its use in medical student training remains limited.
objectiveThis study investigates the effectiveness of using PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication System) for teaching radiology to undergraduate medical students compared to traditional methods.
methodsFifty-three medical students were divided into a control group (25 students) receiving traditional slide-based training and an intervention group (28 students) using PACS software to view complete patient images. Pre- and post-course tests and satisfaction surveys were conducted for both groups, along with self-evaluation by the intervention group. The validity and reliability of the assessment tools were confirmed through expert review and pilot testing.
resultsNo significant difference was found between the control and intervention groups regarding, gender, age, and GPA. Final multiple-choice test scores were similar (intervention: 10.89 ± 2.9; control: 10.76 ± 3.5; p = 0.883). However, the intervention group demonstrated significantly higher improvement in the short answer test for image interpretation (intervention: 8.8 ± 2.28; control: 5.35 ± 2.39; p = 0.001). Satisfaction with the learning method did not significantly differ between groups (intervention: 36.54 ± 5.87; control: 39.44 ± 7.76; p = 0.129). The intervention group reported high familiarity with PACS capabilities (75%), CT principles (71.4%), interpretation (64.3%), appropriate window selection (75%), and anatomical relationships (85.7%).
conclusionPACS-based training enhances medical students' diagnostic and analytical skills in radiology. Further research with larger sample sizes and robust assessment methods is recommended to confirm and expand upon theses results.
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.