Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine & Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
BMC Med Educ. 2024 Jan 10;24(1):51. doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04981-z.
Medical imaging related knowledge and skills are widely used in clinical practice. However, radiology teaching methods and resultant knowledge among medical students and junior doctors is variable. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the impact of different components of radiology teaching methods (active versus passive teaching, eLearning versus traditional face-to-face teaching) on radiology knowledge / skills of medical students.
PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for articles published in English over a 15-year period ending in June 2021 quantitatively comparing the effectiveness of undergraduate medical radiology education programs regarding acquisition of knowledge and/or skills. Study quality was appraised by the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) scoring and analyses performed to assess for risk of bias. A random effects meta-analysis was performed to pool weighted effect sizes across studies and I statistics quantified heterogeneity. A meta-regression analysis was performed to assess for sources of heterogeneity.
From 3,052 articles, 40 articles involving 6,242 medical students met inclusion criteria. Median MERSQI score of the included articles was 13 out of 18 possible with moderate degree of heterogeneity (I = 93.42%). Thematic analysis suggests trends toward synergisms between radiology and anatomy teaching, active learning producing superior knowledge gains compared with passive learning and eLearning producing equivalent learning gains to face-to-face teaching. No significant differences were detected in the effectiveness of methods of radiology education. However, when considered with the thematic analysis, eLearning is at least equivalent to traditional face-to-face teaching and could be synergistic.
Studies of educational interventions are inherently heterogeneous and contextual, typically tailored to specific groups of students. Thus, we could not draw definitive conclusion about effectiveness of the various radiology education interventions based on the currently available data. Better standardisation in the design and implementation of radiology educational interventions and design of radiology education research are needed to understand aspects of educational design and delivery that are optimal for learning.
Prospero registration number CRD42022298607.
医学影像学相关知识和技能在临床实践中得到广泛应用。然而,放射学教学方法和医学生及初级医生的知识水平存在差异。本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在比较放射学教学方法的不同组成部分(主动学习与被动学习、电子学习与传统面对面教学)对医学生放射学知识/技能的影响。
检索 2021 年 6 月前在 PubMed 和 Scopus 数据库发表的英文文献,定量比较本科医学放射学教育项目在获取知识和/或技能方面的效果,使用医学教育研究研究质量工具(MERSQI)评估研究质量并进行评分,分析评估偏倚风险。使用随机效应荟萃分析汇总研究间的加权效应量,并用 I ²统计量量化异质性。进行荟萃回归分析以评估异质性的来源。
从 3052 篇文章中,有 40 篇文章涉及 6242 名医学生符合纳入标准。纳入文章的 MERSQI 中位数为 18 分中的 13 分,异质性中等(I²=93.42%)。主题分析表明放射学与解剖学教学相结合存在协同作用,主动学习比被动学习产生更好的知识增益,电子学习与面对面教学产生等效的学习增益。放射学教育方法的有效性无显著差异。然而,结合主题分析,电子学习至少与传统面对面教学等效,并且可能具有协同作用。
教育干预研究具有内在的异质性和情境性,通常针对特定的学生群体进行定制。因此,我们不能根据现有数据得出关于各种放射学教育干预措施有效性的明确结论。需要更好地规范放射学教育干预措施的设计和实施以及放射学教育研究的设计,以了解最有利于学习的教育设计和教学方面。
PROSPERO 注册号 CRD42022298607。