↓ Skip to main content

A combination of traditional learning and e-learning can be more effective on radiological interpretation skills in medical students: a pre- and post-intervention study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 Mendeley
Title
A combination of traditional learning and e-learning can be more effective on radiological interpretation skills in medical students: a pre- and post-intervention study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0569-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ali Salajegheh, Alborz Jahangiri, Elliot Dolan-Evans, Sahar Pakneshan

Abstract

The ability to interpret an X-Ray is a vital skill for graduating medical students which guides clinicians towards accurate diagnosis and treatment of the patient. However, research has suggested that radiological interpretation skills are less than satisfactory in not only medical students, but also in residents and consultants. This study investigated the effectiveness of e-learning for the development of X-ray interpretation skills in pre-clinical medical students. Competencies in clinical X-Ray interpretation were assessed by comparison of pre- and post-intervention scores and one year follow up assessment, where the e-learning course was the 'intervention'. Our results demonstrate improved knowledge and skills in X-ray interpretation in students. Assessment of the post training students showed significantly higher scores than the scores of control group of students undertaking the same assessment at the same time. The development of the Internet and advances in multimedia technologies has paved the way for computer-assisted education. As more rural clinical schools are established the electronic delivery of radiology teaching through websites will become a necessity. The use of e-learning to deliver radiology tuition to medical students represents an exciting alternative and is an effective method of developing competency in radiological interpretation for medical students.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 144 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 16%
Student > Bachelor 22 15%
Researcher 13 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 6%
Other 36 24%
Unknown 34 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 33%
Social Sciences 13 9%
Computer Science 8 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 41 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 February 2016.
All research outputs
#18,616,159
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,794
of 3,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,766
of 402,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#66
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 402,219 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.