SynthesisBMC medical education2026
Evaluating AI-powered instruction on Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) teaching outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the effectiveness of AI-assisted teaching in computed tomography angiography (CTA) training, focusing on theoretical knowledge, practical skills, image judgment time, and teaching satisfaction.
methodsEight databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 1990 to 2025. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses were performed, along with subgroup analyses by CTA anatomical type, learner group, and sample size.
resultsSeven RCTs with 515 participants were included. All studies were conducted in China with Chinese-language AI interaction. Frequentist analyses showed that AI significantly improved practical skills and reduced image judgment time. Benefits were also observed for theoretical scores and teaching satisfaction. However, Bayesian analyses revealed statistical uncertainty for theoretical scores and teaching satisfaction due to high heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses identified CTA type, learner background, and sample size as key sources of heterogeneity. All included studies had high or some concerns for risk of bias.
conclusionAI-assisted teaching effectively improves practical skills and shortens image judgment time in CTA training, offering clear educational benefits for radiology trainees. However, evidence for theoretical scores and teaching satisfaction remains uncertain due to high heterogeneity and methodological limitations. The findings support targeted integration of AI into CTA curricula while highlighting the need for large-scale, standardized RCTs to confirm long-term efficacy and generalizability.
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.