Medical Student Performance in Diagnosing Common Findings of CT Scan

Abdulaziz Algharras, Sharifa Alduraibi, Khalefa Alghofaily, Saud Alhumud, Alanoud Ahmad, Muteb Almutairi, Shatha Alotaibi, Nour B. Alhussain, Asim Aldhilan, Ali Alamer, Mohammed Aldamegh

Abstract


Diagnostic radiology is a key diagnostic tool in many different conditions and ccrucial for monitoring, treating, and predicting outcomes. Accurately interpreting basic radiological images is a paramount skill for medical professionals. Therefore, this study aimed to assess clinical-phase medical students and interns' knowledge on evident findings on CT scans. This observational cross-sectional study was conducted in a single region in Saudi Arabia from May 2022 to December 2022. An electronic questionnaire were used to collect data. Twenty-one radiograph-based questions were used, for which students were asked to provide the best diagnosis and report their confidence for each question. Ethical approval was obtained. A convenience sampling technique was used to recruit the participants and SPSS were used for data analysis. Two hundred fifty-two medical students were included, with a mean age of 23.02 (SD=1.52) year. Of those, females comprised 65.1% and 86.1% of the total participants were in the clinical year. Most students with above-average knowledge were internship students (37.1%) compared to 9.7% among clinical year students (p=0.001). In addition, students with average knowledge had a higher level of confidence (7.62/10) compared with students with average knowledge (5.24) and students with below-average knowledge (5.24 and 5.057, respectively; p=0.001). In conclusion, the high percentage of incorrect responses reported by the current study reflects a strong deficit in the baseline CT knowledge among medical students. Further interventions are necessary to ensure better radiographic education for future physicians.

Keywords


Clinical Education, CT, diagnostic tools, medical students’ assessment

Full Text:

PDF

References


  1. Suetens P. Fundamentals of medical imaging. 2nd ed. Cambridge University; 2017.
  2. Brown N, Jones L. Knowledge of medical imaging radiation dose and risk among doctors. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2013;57(1):8–14. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9485.2012.02469.x
  3. Salerno S, Laghi A, Cantone MC, Sartori P, Pinto A, Frija G. Overdiagnosis and overimaging: an ethical issue for radiological protection. Radiol Med. 2019;124(8):714–20. doi:10.1007/s11547-019-01029-5.
  4. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cancer in Australia: Actual incidence data from 1982 to 2013 and mortality data from 1982 to 2014 with projections to 2017. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2018;14(1):5–15. doi:10.1111/ajco.12761.
  5. Oren O, Kebebew E, Ioannidis JP. Curbing unnecessary and wasted diagnostic imaging. JAMA. 2019;321(3):245–6.
  6. Levin DC, Rao VM. Reducing Inappropriate Use of Diagnostic Imaging Through the Choosing Wisely Initiative. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(9):1245–52. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2017.03.012.
  7. Samara O, AlRyalat SA, Malkawi L, Ali MB, Kilani A, Alkhalaileh Z, et al. Assessment of final-year medical students’ performance in diagnosing critical findings on chest X-ray. Emergency Radiology. 2021;28(2):333–8.
  8. Werth B, Nguyen B, Ward J, Reyes J, Helmer SD, Nold J, et al. Assessing Medical Student’s Ability to Interpret Traumatic Injuries on Computed Tomography Before and After the Third Year Clerkships. Kans J Med. 2018;11(4):91–4.
  9. Nguyen B, Werth B, Brewer N, Ward JG, Nold RJ, Haan JM. Comparisons of medical student knowledge regarding life-threatening ct images before and after clinical experience. Kans J Med. 2017;10(3):1–12.
  10. Eid JJ, Reiley MI, Miciura AL, Macedo FI, Negussie E, Mittal VK. Interpretation of Basic Clinical Images: How Are Surgical Residents Performing Compared to Other Trainees?. J Surg Educ. 2019;76(6):1500–5. doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2019.04.011.
  11. Mehdipoor G, Salmani F, Arjmand Shabestari A. Survey of practitioners' competency for diagnosis of acute diseases manifest on chest X-ray. BMC Med Imaging. 2017;17(1):49. doi:10.1186/s12880-017-0222-8
  12. Fabre C, Proisy M, Chapuis C, Jouneau S, Lentz PA, Meunier C, et al. Radiology residents’ skill level in chest x-ray reading. Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging. 2018;99(6):361–70.
  13. Christiansen JM, Gerke O, Karstoft J, Andersen PE. Poor interpretation of chest X-rays by junior doctors. Dan Med J. 2014;61(7):A4875.
  14. Belfi LM, Bartolotta RJ, Giambrone AE, Davi C, Min RJ. “Flipping” the introductory clerkship in radiology: impact on medical student performance and perceptions. Academic radiology. 2015;22(6):794–801.
  15. Jimah BB, Baffour Appiah A, Sarkodie BD, Anim D. Competency in chest radiography interpretation by junior doctors and final year medical students at a Teaching Hospital. Radiol Res Pract. 2020;2020:8861206.
  16. Grazziotin-Soares R, Blue C, Feraro R, Tochor K, Ardenghi TM, Curtis D, et al. The interrelationship between confidence and correctness in a multiple-choice assessment: pointing out misconceptions and assuring valuable questions. BDJ Open. 2021;7(1):10.
  17. Lee SG, Cho H, Kim JY, Song J, Park JH. Factors affecting incorrect interpretation of abdominal computed tomography in non-traumatic patients by novice emergency physicians. Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2021;8(3):207–15. doi:10.15441/ceem.20.118.
  18. Lee YJ, Hwang JY, Ryu H, Kim TU, Kim YW, Park JH, et al. Image quality and diagnostic accuracy of reduced-dose computed tomography enterography with model-based iterative reconstruction in pediatric Crohn’s disease patients. Scientific Reports. 2022;12(1):2147.
  19. Saha A, Roland RA, Hartman MS, Daffner RH. Radiology medical student education. Academic Radiology 2013;20(3):284–9.
  20. Andrade C. The Inconvenient Truth About Convenience and Purposive Samples. Indian J Psychol Med. 2021;43(1):86–8. doi:10.1177/0253717620977000




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15395/mkb.v56.3528

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 962 times
PDF - 462 times

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Creative Commons License
MKB is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

 

View My Stats