ArticleBMC medical education2026
Educational experiences associated with cold- and hot-run practical training on the handling of unsealed radioactive sources by radiological technologist students.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate students' subjective educational experiences related to cold- and hot-run practical training on the handling of unsealed radioactive sources by radiological technologists, using quantitative and qualitative methods. To the best of our knowledge, few studies have provided a structured quantitative comparison of perceived safety-related learning experiences between cold- and hot-run training in nuclear medicine.
methodsIn total, 143 students participated in this study. A five-point Likert scale questionnaire was used to evaluate primary and secondary outcomes related to cold- and hot-run training, and open-ended responses were analyzed using a qualitative descriptive methodology.
resultsThe quantitative results showed positive self-reported educational experiences for both procedures; however, hot-run training yielded significantly higher scores in safety awareness and learning satisfaction, including safety-related secondary outcomes, suggesting distinct perceived educational characteristics. The fourth-year students demonstrated lower self-assessment scores than the third-year students across all items. The qualitative findings highlighted the tension, clinical realism, and heightened perceptions of safety awareness associated with hot-run experiences.
conclusionsThese results suggest that combined cold- and hot-run training is perceived as educationally valuable; however, additional educational strategies may be required to support sustained self-confidence and perceived understanding over time.
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.