↓ Skip to main content

Does the Use of a Checklist Help Medical Students in the Detection of Abnormalities on a Chest Radiograph?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Digital Imaging, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Does the Use of a Checklist Help Medical Students in the Detection of Abnormalities on a Chest Radiograph?
Published in
Journal of Digital Imaging, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10278-017-9979-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ellen M. Kok, Abdelrazek Abed, Simon G. F. Robben

Abstract

The interpretation of chest radiographs is a complex task that is prone to diagnostic error, especially for medical students. The aim of this study is to investigate the extent to which medical students benefit from the use of a checklist regarding the detection of abnormalities on a chest radiograph. We developed a checklist based on literature and interviews with experienced thorax radiologists. Forty medical students in the clinical phase assessed 18 chest radiographs during a computer test, either with (n = 20) or without (n = 20) the checklist. We measured performance and asked participants for feedback using a survey. Participants that used a checklist detected more abnormalities on images with multiple abnormalities (M = 50.1%) than participants that could not use a checklist (M = 41.9%), p = 0.04. The post-experimental survey shows that on average, participants considered the checklist helpful (M = 3.25 on a five-point scale), but also time consuming (M = 3.30 on a five-point scale). In conclusion, a checklist can help medical students to detect abnormalities in chest radiographs. Moreover, students tend to appreciate the use of a checklist as a helpful tool during the interpretation of a chest radiograph. Therefore, a checklist is a potentially important tool to improve radiology education in the medical curriculum.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Student > Master 6 14%
Other 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 15 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,110,594
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#129
of 1,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,150
of 316,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#10
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,059 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,105 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.