A randomized controlled trial of SAFMEDS to improve chest radiograph interpretation among medical students

The Effects of Various Teaching Methods on Chest X-ray Interpretation Skills Among Medical Students and Interns: A Systematic Review

“…Compared with earlier tested techniques, such as the training module, SAFMEDS showed a better effect on the performance of CXR interpretation, although it is less decisive regarding the comparison of fluent and non-fluent participants, as Dunne et al [ 27 ] stated. However, SAFMEDS focuses not only on respiratory conditions but also on multiple additional abnormalities.…”

“…In addition, a User Engagement Scale (UES) was used to measure student engagement with the online resource for Wong et al's [ 25 ] study, in which students rated adaptive tutorial eight out of 10 in comparison to six for the Diagnostic Imaging Pathways' website [ 25 ]. The same applied to Shah et al [ 26 ], with the addition of another test after two weeks for measuring retention, while Dunne et al [ 27 ] used the retention test with pre- and post-tests to assess the SAFMED (Say-All-Fast-Minute-Every-Day-Shuffled) method of intervention.…”

“…There was a lack of perceived comfort at six weeks by the control group in each of the eight significant questions on the PCCS. Dunne et al [ 27 ] found that a considerable effect on the intervention was noticed with SAFMEDS, which indicated its significant effectiveness. Furthermore, in Rozenshtein et al's [ 24 ] study, the interleaved (spaced) instruction method showed better outcomes than the massed method across all education levels.…”

“…Moreover, there was a possibility in Shah et al's [ 26 ] study for participants to use assistance from external sources. Further, there was a lack of clinical presentation and parallel teaching in Dunne et al's [ 27 ] study, which may have limited the accuracy of the results. Similar to Shah et al, studies by Geel et al [ 23 ], Rozenshtein et al [ 24 ], Wong et al [ 25 ], and Alsulmi et al [ 20 ] also did not have a pre-test, which is considered a limitation of their studies.…”

“…Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics of the included studies [9,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. The included studies originated from different parts of the world with various interventional study designs that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 8) with a sample size between 14 [19] and 166 [20], quasiexperimental study (n = 1) with 40 medical students [21], cross-sectional study (n = 1) with 99 nonradiologists of whom 38 were medical students [9], interventional cohort (n = 1) with 152 first-year graduate entry [22], and other interventional studies (n = 1) with 18 medical students [23].…”