Radiology Journal is at higher echelons that enhance the intelligence and knowledge dissemination on topics closely associated with Radiology, Radiation Oncology and radiotherapy. They provide a singular forum dedicated to scientists to precise their research articles, review articles, case reports and short communications on an array of Radiology Review Articles Radiology is a medical field that works the practice of imaging to both analyze and treat disease imagined within the body. Radiologists use an collection of imaging technologies such as X-ray radiography, ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), nuclear medicine, positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance Review The 6 th edition of Wolfgang Dahnert's Radiology Review Manual, like its predecessors, is a good revision guide for exam-going residents as well as a handy reference manual for the practicing general radiologist. The manual essentially provides extensive lists of imaging findings that are associated with a specific pathology as well as lists of differential diagnoses for a given imaging blogger.com: Pradeep Krishnan
Academic Radiology - Journal - Elsevier
Little objective evidence exists regarding what makes a good lecture. Our purpose was to determine qualities of radiology review course lectures that are associated with positive audience evaluation, radiology review articles. Mean audience evaluation scores for each talk from daily audience evaluations up to 60 per talk were standardized out of Correlation coefficient was calculated between continuous variables and audience evaluation scores.
Student T test was performed on categorical variables and audience evaluation scores. Talks with special effects were rated better mean score Talks with the highest image quality were rated better mean score Many factors go into making a great review course lecture.
High image volume per case may be negatively associated with audience evaluation scores. Educational presentations in Diagnostic Imaging are often crafted through experience, intuition, radiology review articles, and based on feedback from previous lectures. Little is known regarding relationship of certain lecture variables e. number of cases, number of slides with lecture effectiveness, radiology review articles.
Many traits have been associated with effective presentations although have not necessarily been objectively studied to determine if they correlate with audience evaluation.
These would include lectures with clearly stated objectives, high quality images, techniques that encourage audience participation such as audience questioning, as well as strategies to motivate and entertain the listener including humor [ 1 ].
Other traits such as text slides with too many lines per slide and too many words per radiology review articles have been associated with lower quality presentations [ 2 ]. Analysis of comments received at a Radiology review articles Radiology Continuing Medical Education Course demonstrated that poor image quality such as images that are too dark or incompletely projected on a screen commonly resulted in negative feedback [ 3 ].
Radiology resident review courses are common and aim to prepare residents for board examinations [ 6 - 9 ]. Lecturing at these courses can be demanding and may require a more case-intensive style than lectures given at other diagnostic imaging courses. The University of Ottawa puts on an annual week long resident review course that aims to prepare residents for their Canadian Radiology Board Examinations [ 9 ], radiology review articles. This course was started in and has been attended by more than individuals over 3 years.
In order to continually improve course quality, the course directors gather feedback from attendees regarding each lecture. The purpose of our study is to evaluate which radiology review course lecture variables are associated with positive audience evaluation. The local research ethics board waived approval for this study. Ottawa Hospital Research Ethics Board, radiology review articles. The 2nd Annual Ottawa Resident Review Course which took place radiology review articles March 25—30, had a total of 57 presentations given by 39 separate speakers; it was attended by more than people.
Video capture of the slides and simultaneous audio of the presenters was saved, radiology review articles. PDF versions of each talk were also saved for review. Forty six of the 57 presentations had video files which could be reviewed some speakers did not consent to recording ; all 57 presentations had pdf files available. Audience evaluations of each lecture from course attendees were collected.
Lectures were scored on a 1—5 scale 5 being best and freeform comments could be made. These were standardized to a maximum score of by adding all scores achieved by a given talk, multiplying by 20 and then dividing by the total number of respondents.
The following objective data was collected by reviewing the recorded lectures when available or the lecture pdf files: use of objectives or outline, total slides per minute, number of text lines per text slide, number of words per text slide, cases per minute, images per minute, images per case, number of episodes of audience laughter per presentation, number of questions posed to the audience per presentation, number of radiology review articles or summary slides, radiology review articles, use of animation.
Image quality was assessed by reviewing recorded lectures and radiology review articles on a subjective 1—5 scale with 5 being best, radiology review articles.
Higher scores were awarded to talks with images that were properly cropped and possessed suitable contrast and clearly demonstrated the relevant findings. Presentations with these traits for all of the images were scored as 5, for only half were scored as 3 and for none were scored as 1. The radiology review articles for the framework of the image quality evaluation was derived from frequently cited image quality criticisms in a prior study of radiology lectures [ 3 ].
Data collection was done by L, radiology review articles. a PGY4 radiology resident. The data collector was not blinded to the speaker identity; this was not feasible due to the fact that speakers were recognizable from the audio files.
Written comments from course evaluations were reviewed qualitatively. Commonly recurring comments were tabulated, radiology review articles. Common occurrence was defined as occurring more than 3 times.
Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between each of the extracted variables with non-dichotomous scoring and the presentation evaluation scores by attendees. didactic, use of special effects such as animation. Talks with slides per minute in excess of one standard deviation SD above the mean were compared to the remainder of the presentations. For the 55 presentations with images, lectures with cases per minute, radiology review articles, images per minute or images per case one SD above the mean were compared to the remaining talks.
Similarly, of the 44 talks on video which also contained images, those achieving image quality scores of 5 were compared to talks awarded scores of 1 to 4.
A low score group and a high score group were defined as talks awarded a standardized feedback score of less than one SD or more than one SD relative to the mean overall feedback score, respectively. Average values for many of the above described parameters were compared between the high scoring and low scoring groups using the Student t -test. Parameters analyzed as a proportion radiology review articles defined with 0 being none of the presentations in the group possessing a characteristic, 1 being all of the presentations possessing a characteristic and values in between corresponding to the fraction of talks displaying the trait in question.
Statistical analysis was performed with Microsoft Excel Microsoft Corporation, Redmond Washington, radiology review articles,version The number of evaluations received for each presentation ranged from 26—60 with a mean of Presentation scores ranged in value from 72 to 97 out of An average score of There were 9 presentations which achieved a score of greater than There were 11 presentations that received a score of less than Of the 57 presentations, 55 contained Diagnostic Imaging DI images, such as images from MRI, CT, US and plain radiography studies.
Radiology review articles commonly recurring written qualitative positive comments amongst the high scoring group presentations and the commonly encountered written negative comments amongst the low scoring group presentations radiology review articles presented in Table 1.
Correlation between presentation scores and various parameters are listed in Table 2. Presentations with sophisticated special effects demonstrated an average score of Presentations which contained one or both of a pretest or posttest component scored an average of 92 whereas those with neither scored an average of Presentations with an image quality score of 5 received an average score of An interesting outcome was that the average score for presentations with images per case in excess of one standard deviation above the mean was Between the high score group and low score group, average image quality scores revealed a difference of 4.
All HSG scores include 8 presentations. All LSG scores include 8 presentations except Image quality score, Proportion containing Sophisticated Special Effects and Proportion containing any Special Effects which each contain 7 as one talk did not have Diagnostic Imaging images.
Consistent with previous reports [ 2 ], our results indicate that high quality images that were properly cropped, radiology review articles, well projected, possessed suitable contrast and clearly demonstrated the relevant findings was most strongly associated with higher attendee evaluation scores. This would support the role of entertainment in maintaining audience interest and attention to establish an environment conducive to learning [ 1 ].
It is interesting to note that this metric only achieved near statistical significance when comparing lectures with and without audience laughter. The use of special effects was also strongly associated with higher scores. This would include the use of clear annotations pointing to the appropriate findings as well as effective use of animation including builds and transitioning between slides [ 2 ].
This emphasizes the central role that audience interaction and participation plays in the dynamic learning process [ 1 ]. However, simply having informal questions posed to the audience was not associated with higher scores. It is interesting that many factors which might intuitively be expected to be associated with higher evaluation scores were not confirmed in our study. This would include having stated objectives or summarizing material during the lecture both of which have been felt to enhance speaker effectiveness [ 1 ].
Not finishing on time was previously documented to be a common source of negative audience feedback [ 3 ] although this was not confirmed to be statistically significant in our results, radiology review articles. As well, it has long been thought that text slides with too many words per slide or too many text lines per slide were ineffective [ 2radiology review articles, 3 ] although in our study this revealed only fairly weak negative correlation with audience evaluation scores.
Despite radiology being an image based specialty, a higher number of images were not associated with higher audience evaluation scores, radiology review articles.
In fact, having more images per case was the strongest negative correlation in our study although is not incompatible with previous reports [ 2 ]. This would suggest that image quality is much more important than image radiology review articles. It has been suggested that images should not be overused or include simply to impress the audience.
Superfluous images can be avoided by eliminating anything that does not assist in attainment of the original lecture objectives [ 2 ], radiology review articles. case-based lectures indicating that lecture style alone is not a determinant radiology review articles success or failure. A weakness of our study includes the fact that not all presentations had video files that were available to be reviewed.
The conference that we studied radiology review articles targeted to a specific audience of resident review course attendees which may limit the applicability to other courses in radiology and other specialties. Similar studies at different CME conferences may help identify whether these patterns endure at courses with other themes, radiology review articles.
The comments from attendees point to some possible areas for further research such as organization, pace of talk, volume of speaker and accuracy of slides. This study identifies that there are many determinants of high quality Diagnostic Imaging review course lectures. These findings can assist in optimizing lecture preparation and guide further research.
LC performed data extraction, drafted the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript. MM helped with study design, manuscript editing and approved the final version of the manuscript. JR helped with study design, manuscript editing and approved the final version of the manuscript.
National Center for Biotechnology InformationU. National Library of Medicine Rockville PikeBethesda MDUSA. NCBI Skip to main content Skip to navigation Resources How To About NCBI Accesskeys My NCBI Sign in to NCBI Sign Out.
PMC US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. Search database PMC All Databases Assembly Biocollections BioProject BioSample BioSystems Books ClinVar Conserved Domains dbGaP dbVar Gene Genome GEO DataSets GEO Profiles GTR HomoloGene Identical Protein Groups MedGen MeSH NCBI Web Site NLM Catalog Nucleotide OMIM PMC PopSet Protein Protein Clusters Protein Family Models PubChem BioAssay Radiology review articles Compound PubChem Substance PubMed SNP SRA Structure Taxonomy ToolKit ToolKitAll ToolKitBookgh Search term.
Journal List BMC Med Educ v, radiology review articles. BMC Med Educ.
Board Review - Thoracic Radiology - Part 2
, time: 16:49Radiology Review - 6th Edition
12/9/ · The third is a radiology resident in training with 4 years of experience who is a PhD candidate in radiology artificial intelligence. Three reviewers will extract the following information in parallel and record in a custom database: 1. Country of origin (Paediatric Review only) 2. Radiology subspecialty. 3. Retro/prospective. 4. Supervised Review The 6 th edition of Wolfgang Dahnert's Radiology Review Manual, like its predecessors, is a good revision guide for exam-going residents as well as a handy reference manual for the practicing general blogger.com manual essentially provides extensive lists of imaging findings that are associated with a specific pathology as well as lists of differential diagnoses for a given Academic Radiology publishes original reports of clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, image-guided interventions and related techniques. It also includes brief technical reports describing original
No comments:
Post a Comment