Errors in radiographic interpretation made by veterinary students.
As a means of identifying student weaknesses in radiographic interpretation that could be used as foci for teaching, a cohort of 96 students joining the final-year radiology rotation were randomly allocated to one of three radiographic interpretation quizzes, each based on radiographs of small-animal patients together with the signalment and a brief, relevant history. Students' quiz scores were analyzed by multiple logistic regression, using an outcome variable with the score for each item as numerator and maximum possible mark as denominator. Students' median quiz score was 49% of the maximum (range 23-80%). Students were more likely to gain a mark for items based on abnormal radiographs than for those based on normal radiographs (odds ratio 3.4, p < 0.001). Skeletal radiographs were associated with lower scores (OR 0.75, p = 0.03). The fewest marks were awarded for interpretation of a radiograph of a normal canine stifle and interpretation of a radiograph of a normal canine pelvis; these items were misinterpreted as abnormal by 86% and 80% of the students, respectively. Students' tendency to over-interpret normal radiographs may reflect a lack of knowledge of radiographic anatomy or an unrealistically high expectation that the radiographs are abnormal.
Lamb
C R
CR
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hertfordshire AL9 7TA, UK. clamb@rvc.ac.uk
Pfeiffer
D U
DU
Mantis
P
P
D000818:Animals; D002983:Clinical Competence; D003937:Diagnosis, Differential; D004520:Education, Veterinary / Q000592:standards; D004521:Educational Measurement; D006801:Humans; D011859:Radiography / Q000662:veterinary*; D011871:Radiology / Q000193:education* / Q000592:standards; D011897:Random Allocation; D018634:Veterinarians / Q000523:psychology*