We have located links that may give you full text access.
Analysis of Longitudinal Assessment: Role of Radiology OLA-Type Questions.
Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR 2024 March 24
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to assess gaps in radiologists' medical knowledge using abdominal subspecialty online longitudinal assessment (OLA)-type questions. Secondarily, we evaluated what question-centric factors influenced radiologists to pursue self-directed additional reading on topics presented.
METHODS: A prospective OLA-type test was distributed nationally to radiologists over a four-month period. Questions were divided into multiple groupings, including arising from three different time periods of literature (≤ 5 years, 6-15 years and > 20 years), relating to common versus uncommon modalities, and guideline-based versus knowledge-based characterization. After each question, participants rated their confidence in diagnosis and perceived question relevance. Answers were provided and links to answer explanations and references were provided and tracked. A series of regression models were used to test potential predictors of correct response, participant confidence, and perceived question relevance.
RESULTS: 119 participants initiated the survey, with 100 answering at least one of the questions. Participants had significantly lower perceived relevance (mean: 51.3, 59.2, and 62.1 for topics ≤5 years old, 6-15 years old, and >20 years old, respectively; p<0.001) and confidence (mean: 48.4, 57.8, and 63.4, respectively; p<0.001) with questions on newer literature compared to older. Participants were significantly more likely to read question explanations for questions on common modalities compared to uncommon (46% vs 40%; p = 0.005) and on guideline-based questions compared to knowledge-based (49% vs 43%; p = 0.01).
DISCUSSION: OLA-type questions function by identifying areas where radiologists lack knowledge or confidence and highlight areas where participants have interest in further education.
METHODS: A prospective OLA-type test was distributed nationally to radiologists over a four-month period. Questions were divided into multiple groupings, including arising from three different time periods of literature (≤ 5 years, 6-15 years and > 20 years), relating to common versus uncommon modalities, and guideline-based versus knowledge-based characterization. After each question, participants rated their confidence in diagnosis and perceived question relevance. Answers were provided and links to answer explanations and references were provided and tracked. A series of regression models were used to test potential predictors of correct response, participant confidence, and perceived question relevance.
RESULTS: 119 participants initiated the survey, with 100 answering at least one of the questions. Participants had significantly lower perceived relevance (mean: 51.3, 59.2, and 62.1 for topics ≤5 years old, 6-15 years old, and >20 years old, respectively; p<0.001) and confidence (mean: 48.4, 57.8, and 63.4, respectively; p<0.001) with questions on newer literature compared to older. Participants were significantly more likely to read question explanations for questions on common modalities compared to uncommon (46% vs 40%; p = 0.005) and on guideline-based questions compared to knowledge-based (49% vs 43%; p = 0.01).
DISCUSSION: OLA-type questions function by identifying areas where radiologists lack knowledge or confidence and highlight areas where participants have interest in further education.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Review article: Recent advances in ascites and acute kidney injury management in cirrhosis.Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2024 March 26
Executive Summary: State-of-the-Art Review: Unintended Consequences: Risk of Opportunistic Infections Associated with Long-term Glucocorticoid Therapies in Adults.Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 April 11
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app