Trial reportBMC medical education2026
A structured blended learning approach for medical imaging technology interns: a prospective randomized comparative study.
Trial report 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo address radiation safety constraints and equipment shortages in Computed Tomography (CT) training, this study introduces a Structured Blended Learning (SBL) framework integrating Small Private Online Courses (SPOCs), Flipped Classroom (FC), Virtual Simulation (VS), and remote supervision enabled by 5G communication infrastructure. This approach bridges the theory-practice gap by providing a structured progression from knowledge acquisition to simulated and clinical practice.
methodsIn a prospective randomized comparative study, 60 medical imaging interns undergoing CT clinical rotations were randomly assigned to either the SBL group (n = 30) or the traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) group (n = 30). Training effectiveness was evaluated using continuous theoretical examination scores (t-tests), ordinal Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX) practical assessments (Mann-Whitney U tests), and frequency distribution data from Likert-scale surveys (χ² tests) assessing student satisfaction and perceived learning outcomes.
resultsThe SBL group consistently outperformed the LBL group across all theoretical assessments, yielding significantly higher mean scores in the pre-class, post-class, and final examinations (t = 2.391-2.779; all P < 0.05; Cohen's d = 0.586-0.717). Mini-CEX assessments revealed superior performance by the SBL group across six domains, including patient positioning and handling, radiation protection and safety, equipment operation and image acquisition, image quality evaluation, organization and efficiency, and overall professional competence (Z = 4.855-5.110; all P < 0.001; r = 0.627-0.660). Furthermore, the SBL group reported significantly higher satisfaction with teaching methods, professional skills development, and overall evaluation (χ² =12.76-37.49; all P < 0.01; Cramér's V=0.231-0.395) and perceived greater effectiveness in professional theoretical knowledge, practical and operational skills, self-directed learning, and overall teaching effectiveness (χ² = 18.27-27.04; all P < 0.01; Cramér's V = 0.276-0.336).
conclusionsThe SBL approach provides an effective, safe, and engaging pedagogical framework for training medical imaging interns in complex CT workflows. By leveraging digital technologies to address physical access and radiation safety constraints, this approach demonstrates potential for broader application in medical imaging technology education, although further multicenter studies are needed to confirm its 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.