BackgroundCurrently, no national standard exists for educating medical students regarding radiography or formal research indicating the level of improvement regarding computed tomography (CT) interpretation of medical students during clinical rotations.MethodsStudents were evaluated based on their response to twenty-two open-ended questions regarding diagnosis and treatment of eleven de-identified CT images of life-threatening injuries. The number of incorrect answers was compared with correct or partially correct answers between students starting third-year clinical rotations and those starting their fourth year.ResultsSurvey results were collected from 65 of 65 (100%) beginning third-year students and 9 of 60 (15%) beginning fourth-year students. Students in their fourth-year had less incorrect answers compared to third-year students, with five questions reflecting a statistically significant reduction in incorrect responses. The image with the least incorrect for both groups was epidural hemorrhage, 33.9% and 18.5% incorrect for third-year students for diagnosis and treatment, respectively, and 11.1% and 0% incorrect for fourth-year students. Outside of this image, the range of incorrect answers for third-year students was 75.4% to 100% and 44.4% to 100% for fourth-year students.ConclusionBaseline CT knowledge of medical students, regardless of clinical experience, indicated a strong deficit, as more students were incorrect than correct for the majority of CT images.

Introduction. Exposure to radiologic images during clinical rotationsmay improve students’ skill levels. This study aimed to quantifythe improvement in radiographic interpretation of life-threateningtraumatic injuries gained during third year clinical clerkships (MS-3). Methods. We used a paired-sample prospective study design tocompare students’ accuracy in reading computed tomography (CT)images at the beginning of their third year clerkships (Phase I) andagain after completion of all of their third year clerkships (Phase II).Students were shown life-threatening injuries that included head,chest, abdomen, and pelvic injuries. Overall scores for Phase II werecompared with Phase I, as well as sub-scores for each anatomicalregion: head, chest, abdomen, and pelvis. Results. Only scores from students participating in both Phase Iand Phase II (N = 57) were used in the analysis. After completingtheir MS3 clerkship, students scored significantly better overall andin every anatomical region. Phase I and Phase II overall mean scoreswere 1.2 ± 1.1 vs. 4.6 ± 1.8 (p < 0.001). Students improved the mostwith respect to injuries of the head and chest and the area of leastimprovement was in interpreting CT scans of the abdomen. Althoughimprovements in reading radiographic images were noted after theclerkship year, students accurately diagnosed only 46% of life-threateningimages on CT scan in the trauma setting. Conclusions. These results indicated that enhanced education isneeded for medical students to interpret CT scans.Kans J Med 2018;11(4):91-94.