PURPOSE: To demonstrate that virtual lectures can substitute conventional lectures in radiology education for medical students. METHODS AND MATERIALS: During the course 2005-2006, 89 out from 191 (46.6%) third year students of a subject entitled "General Radiology", participated voluntarily in a pilot study including 22 virtual lectures (Flash presentations translated from the same PowerPoint presentations of conventional lectures, adding recorded narration and navigation tools). Participants (P) studied by means of virtual lectures, while non-participants (NP) assisted to conventional lectures. The results of the final oral exam classified from 0 to 3, and a 60-questions evaluation on image interpretation were used to compare both groups after training. Finally, 34 students from the group P (38.2%) fulfilled a 10-points scale quality survey about the project. RESULTS: Final exam qualifications were significantly higher for P than for NP (2.11 ± 0.85 versus 1.73 ± 1.04) as well as the number of correct answers of the evaluation on image interpretation (24.2 ± 6.2 versus 21.2 ± 5.4), but differences could obey to different attitudes between both groups. The usefulness of virtual lectures to learn General Radiology obtained the highest global scoring (8.82 ± 1.00). Contents were generally better evaluated than the design of the presentations. CONCLUSION: Virtual lectures can substitute conventional lectures in radiology education for medical students with no detriment to students' learning. Their potential advantage is that magisterial lectures can be used to discuss contents with students in a more participative way if virtual lectures are provided before.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate that virtual lectures can substitute conventional lectures in radiology education for medical students. METHODS AND MATERIALS: During the course 2005-2006, 89 out from 191 (46.6%) third year students of a subject entitled "General Radiology", participated voluntarily in a pilot study including 22 virtual lectures (Flash presentations translated from the same PowerPoint presentations of conventional lectures, adding recorded narration and navigation tools). Participants (P) studied by means of virtual lectures, while non-participants (NP) assisted to conventional lectures. The results of the final oral exam classified from 0 to 3, and a 60-questions evaluation on image interpretation were used to compare both groups after training. Finally, 34 students from the group P (38.2%) fulfilled a 10-points scale quality survey about the project. RESULTS: Final exam qualifications were significantly higher for P than for NP (2.11 ± 0.85 versus 1.73 ± 1.04) as well as the number of correct answers of the evaluation on image interpretation (24.2 ± 6.2 versus 21.2 ± 5.4), but differences could obey to different attitudes between both groups. The usefulness of virtual lectures to learn General Radiology obtained the highest global scoring (8.82 ± 1.00). Contents were generally better evaluated than the design of the presentations. CONCLUSION: Virtual lectures can substitute conventional lectures in radiology education for medical students with no detriment to students' learning. Their potential advantage is that magisterial lectures can be used to discuss contents with students in a more participative way if virtual lectures are provided before.