Everybody wants to learn radiology - Here's how you actually do it!

[RadsGuy]

I was going to put this information in a reply to another post, but figured it's such a big topic that it deserved its own post. And I think the radiology resource recommendations to students and physicians on this site are ok, but not great, and only listed by popular vote which has its flaws.

Radiology is a cornerstone of medicine, yet there's no medical school training on it. And people are always asking how to get better because you use it so much. To be honest, there's not that many great resources out there and if you do find some, it can be a huge time suck because many of them are built for radiologists (too in depth), built for students (too basic) or just show you cases, but don't teach you how to read. I believe in using your time wisely and therefore minimizing the resources you use to study. If you use too many resources, you're wasting time in overlap knowledge. Therefore, here's my recommendation. Just two sites. Keep it simple:

1. The Radiology Assistant : Welcome to the Radiology Assistant

2. Rads Consult

#1 is an amazing website that is both comprehensive and easy to understand. You can read it like a book, the graphics are excellent and the images are not 20yrs old like many radiology sites. Learningradiology.com is a popular site, but in my opinion, it's quite piecemeal leaving big gaps in your radiology knowledge and hard to navigate. You could put in 2hrs on that site and not come away with a comprehensive understanding of anything. On the contrary, if you put in 2hrs on radiologyassistant.nl (just start working your way through the abdomen section for example), the knowledge will build on itself and you'll have clear stopping points in your study time so you can come back and continue. I tell 1st and 2nd yr radiology residents looking for books or resources, that if they understand everything on this site, they'll be rockstar residents. 3rd and 4th yr you need to dive deeper but this knowledge is essential and way more than enough for a non-radiologist. And I think the authors make it easy enough to where a non-rads resident can understand it. The UVA website is ok, but kind of basic and not enough information for you to put into practice. Stay away from looking at radiology case websites!!!! It's like giving you flash cards about NFL defenses (Cover 2, Nickel, Spy, Prevent, etc.) without even understanding what the positions are on the field (FS, CB, LB, DE, etc.). You can go to those sites later after you've learned about a topic or been through the relevant section on radiologyassistant.nl. Oh and if the site gets a little too in the weeds (like pelvic MRI of endometriosis, obviously, just skim or skip it).

#2 is an excellent website that teaches you what to order and when it's appropriate. It's easy to use, very comprehensive (maybe too much as many institutions don't have access to Gallium or a few other things it recommends), and it works surprisingly well on your iPhone. It's insane that there is no medical curriculum for this because it costs us hundreds of millions of dollars a year in medical waste, not to mention the decreased efficiency and ordering provider angst it causes. It's more practical and you can implement this knowledge on day 1. I know you want to learn how to read imaging, but really you're going to be ordering more imaging than you're reading and nobody is going to be double-checking your orders like they will be your reads. This is essential knowledge for any doc because the last thing you want to do is make a $5,000 mistake by ordering the wrong MRI. These tests and procedures are not only costly, they're also dangerous - first do no harm, right? It's also got a great FAQ section which teaches you how to handle real life situations like how to deal with a breastfeeding or pregnant patient, someone with bad kidneys, or what you need to do before your patient gets sent to IR so that they don't come back to the floor 15min later with a "reschedule when platelets and INR are within "X" parameters" note. Most of the stuff on this site is cited. The other recs (just from loosely browsing the site) are good and may never have citations because it's kind of common knowledge and practice (it's like publishing a paper on why you should put one foot in front of the other to walk. duh!). The exams recommended will probably vary a bit depending on what resources you have available and where you practice. But overall, it's the only thing like it I know of that's out there and free. And you could probably read the FAQ section like a book because you will inevitably have those scenarios pop up.

Between those two, you will learn pretty much everything you want to know about radiology as a non-radiologist or a young radiologist. And you won't waste all your time learning radiology instead of your primary specialty.

Feel free to ask me about other helpful radiology sites you've stumbled upon and I can take a look.

Hopefully I picked the right forum to put this up in...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Raryn]

I was going to put this information in a reply to another post, but figured it's such a big topic that it deserved its own post. And I think the radiology resource recommendations to students and physicians on this site are ok, but not great, and only listed by popular vote which has its flaws.

Radiology is a cornerstone of medicine, yet there's no medical school training on it. And people are always asking how to get better because you use it so much. To be honest, there's not that many great resources out there and if you do find some, it can be a huge time suck because many of them are built for radiologists (too in depth), built for students (too basic) or just show you cases, but don't teach you how to read. I believe in using your time wisely and therefore minimizing the resources you use to study. If you use too many resources, you're wasting time in overlap knowledge. Therefore, here's my recommendation. Just two sites. Keep it simple:

1. The Radiology Assistant : Welcome to the Radiology Assistant

2. Rads Consult

#1 is an amazing website that is both comprehensive and easy to understand. You can read it like a book, the graphics are excellent and the images are not 20yrs old like many radiology sites. Learningradiology.com is a popular site, but in my opinion, it's quite piecemeal leaving big gaps in your radiology knowledge and hard to navigate. You could put in 2hrs on that site and not come away with a comprehensive understanding of anything. On the contrary, if you put in 2hrs on radiologyassistant.nl (just start working your way through the abdomen section for example), the knowledge will build on itself and you'll have clear stopping points in your study time so you can come back and continue. I tell 1st and 2nd yr radiology residents looking for books or resources, that if they understand everything on this site, they'll be rockstar residents. 3rd and 4th yr you need to dive deeper but this knowledge is essential and way more than enough for a non-radiologist. And I think the authors make it easy enough to where a non-rads resident can understand it. The UVA website is ok, but kind of basic and not enough information for you to put into practice. Stay away from looking at radiology case websites!!!! It's like giving you flash cards about NFL defenses (Cover 2, Nickel, Spy, Prevent, etc.) without even understanding what the positions are on the field (FS, CB, LB, DE, etc.). You can go to those sites later after you've learned about a topic or been through the relevant section on radiologyassistant.nl. Oh and if the site gets a little too in the weeds (like pelvic MRI of endometriosis, obviously, just skim or skip it).

#2 is an excellent website that teaches you what to order and when it's appropriate. It's easy to use, very comprehensive (maybe too much as many institutions don't have access to Gallium or a few other things it recommends), and it works surprisingly well on your iPhone. It's insane that there is no medical curriculum for this because it costs us hundreds of millions of dollars a year in medical waste, not to mention the decreased efficiency and ordering provider angst it causes. It's more practical and you can implement this knowledge on day 1. I know you want to learn how to read imaging, but really you're going to be ordering more imaging than you're reading and nobody is going to be double-checking your orders like they will be your reads. This is essential knowledge for any doc because the last thing you want to do is make a $5,000 mistake by ordering the wrong MRI. These tests and procedures are not only costly, they're also dangerous - first do no harm, right? It's also got a great FAQ section which teaches you how to handle real life situations like how to deal with a breastfeeding or pregnant patient, someone with bad kidneys, or what you need to do before your patient gets sent to IR so that they don't come back to the floor 15min later with a "reschedule when platelets and INR are within "X" parameters" note. Most of the stuff on this site is cited. The other recs (just from loosely browsing the site) are good and may never have citations because it's kind of common knowledge and practice (it's like publishing a paper on why you should put one foot in front of the other to walk. duh!). The exams recommended will probably vary a bit depending on what resources you have available and where you practice. But overall, it's the only thing like it I know of that's out there and free. And you could probably read the FAQ section like a book because you will inevitably have those scenarios pop up.

Between those two, you will learn pretty much everything you want to know about radiology as a non-radiologist or a young radiologist. And you won't waste all your time learning radiology instead of your primary specialty.

Feel free to ask me about other helpful radiology sites you've stumbled upon and I can take a look.

Hopefully I picked the right forum to put this up in...

Holy crap are those websites poorly made. The first is *ok* (though organization is a problem) but the second one is straight out of 1995. It's unusable.

 

[RadsGuy]

Holy crap are those websites poorly made. The first is *ok* (though organization is a problem) but the second one is straight out of 1995. It's unusable.

I have to diasgree about radiologyassisant.nl. I think it's totally fine. Curious what you find wrong with it?

radsconsult.com is a bit clunky I agree. But it's the only thing out there like it that I've found that's free. And the info is solid. May be a minor learning curve but it's far from "unusable".

The alternative is 1000 pages of ACR Appropriateness Criteria .pdf's which no one has time for or a built-in hospital clinical decision support tool. Many of those are kind of a headache as well and often not very helpful. And no individual can get access to it unless your hospital shells out tens of thousands of dollars for it. It is integrated with you EMR though which is nice. One of the hospitals I used to work at had one and I still got calls all the time asking what to order.

 

[Crayola227]

In med school I used both websites, they are quite good, and I've never had any issue using them. The radiologist at my institution that teaches residents and students is regarded as something of a god, and these were used in the med school curriculum for everyone. I later did a radiology elective with them.

I've always felt like anything to do with the radiology department feels like a throw back to the days of DOS. I don't know why that is.

The radiologists are the ones that seem to put these sites together, and they don't seem to have an issue with them. I don't either.

Sure, the interface could be snappier, but as someone who has been doing what I can to maintain my own website, SEO, and graphics, all I can tell you is it's way harder than it looks. It looks to me that whoever put these together know what they're doing with teaching radiology and web design. It costs serious money to make something really slick, and for whatever reason with all the money in medicine and in medical education, it always feels like the EHRs and the educational materials are hobbled together. I'm sure more money would make it slicker, but whatever.

 

[Crayola227]

Thank you for your post.

 

[FrkyBgStok]

as someone who wants to get better at reading in a basic manner (going into peds EM so just quick stuff) I really appreciate the post. Thank you very much.

 

[Raryn]

I have to diasgree about radiologyassisant.nl. I think it's totally fine. Curious what you find wrong with it?

radsconsult.com is a bit clunky I agree. But it's the only thing out there like it that I've found that's free. And the info is solid. May be a minor learning curve but it's far from "unusable".

The alternative is 1000 pages of ACR Appropriateness Criteria .pdf's which no one has time for or a built-in hospital clinical decision support tool. Many of those are kind of a headache as well and often not very helpful. And no individual can get access to it unless your hospital shells out tens of thousands of dollars for it. It is integrated with you EMR though which is nice. One of the hospitals I used to work at had one and I still got calls all the time asking what to order.

Well, I'm an endocrinologst, so lets say I have a trainee who wants to find out something about adrenal imaging after a patient of mine is noted to have a history of adrenal incidentaloma. What should he do to evaluate this one (after looking at the old image)? I look at the options and try to find it. I guess body is the best option. The adrenals aren't chest, GI, or GU so I hit misc. Nothing there. Well, it sits on top of the kidney... Is it GU? No. Lets look at the other option. It's under GI? Who would have guessed that. Only took me a dozen clicks to find it.

What information does it have? The barest details. Certainly not enough for anyone hoping to learn anything or decide what study to order. According to the site, you do a WWO or an MRI to characterize the lesion but it gives no information over what characteristics you care about - or if all lesions need that study done. In fact, the little information it gives is not sufficient - you don't need a triple phase scan if the baseline non-contrast scan had an attenuation < 10 HU (which is clearly indicative of a lipid rich adenoma). The AUC allude to that (the noncon scan "Should be evaluated by radiologist to determine if contrast administration is needed.") but even they don't give the details to know whether you even need to order that study.

OK, lets look at thyroid. We'll use the search bar this time, since there's no reasoning to how it's organized. First thing that pops up when I type in thyroid? "Hypothyroidism/Hashimoto's Thyroiditis". All it says under that? Exam: 1. NM I-123 Uptake and Scan. Which is 100% useless in hypothyroidism. Like, quite literally, 100% useless. It gives the clinician zero information. "Thyroid Cancer (Low Risk)" what is the only thing listed? Exam: 1. NM I-123 Whole Body Scan. Which is again, the wrong answer - in a low risk lesion, the only imaging modality we typically use is ultrasound. Which isn't even listed anywhere. In fact, the ultrasound isn't even coming up on the search bar, which is weird... Back to the front page. Nothing seems to be right under "Search By Body Part or System" so I scroll down to ultrasound. Click that. Hey, there's thyroid. What's listed?

"Ultrasound Thyroid Indications • Thyroid Nodule • Thyroid Cancer • Lymphoma • Hashimoto Thyroiditis • Graves Disease • Subacute Thyroiditis • De Quervain Thyroiditis • Goiter • Parathyroid Adenoma"

Are all of those indications for ultrasound all the time? Hell no. Does the page give any information whatsoever on when in those cases you should order an ultrasound? No. It just lists every thyroid condition possible as a possible indication for thyroid ultrasound.

OK, I look at parathyroid. Hey, there's a page for "Increased Parathyroid Hormone Levels". What's listed there? "1. NM Tc 99m Sestamibi Parathyroid Scan with SPECT CT vs Parathyroid 4D CT." Any information on when I should order one compared to the other? No. Hell, ultrasound isn't even listed as a possibility, even though a different page on the site lists it as a possibility for that indication. Do I know which test to order from the information here? Nope.

Etc.

OK, well, maybe the other parts of the site are more useful. Here's where I get more to bad site design - clicking back and forth in the FAQ section rather than just having each question open within the same page is frustrating. The information seems to be decent, though some of it doesn't jibe with what I've learned elsewhere, and it cites few sources and gives few specifics.

Basically, the site has some bare essentials without any of the context to interpret them with, a bunch of the information is entirely uncited, it is difficult to navigate, and on top of all that the information (as presented) is sometimes entirely incorrect for the question being asked.

So yes, at least for the few things I know well, the site is far from solid.

 

[deleted950463]

Radiopedia is a solid reference for all my cross sectional anatomy study needs during M1 years. Statdx is considered to be the gold standard reference for radiology by some though.

 

[Mangal]

Thanks for sharing this wonderful resources.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN

 

[RadsGuy]

Well, I'm an endocrinologst, so lets say I have a trainee who wants to find out something about adrenal imaging after a patient of mine is noted to have a history of adrenal incidentaloma. What should he do to evaluate this one (after looking at the old image)? I look at the options and try to find it. I guess body is the best option. The adrenals aren't chest, GI, or GU so I hit misc. Nothing there. Well, it sits on top of the kidney... Is it GU? No. Lets look at the other option. It's under GI? Who would have guessed that. Only took me a dozen clicks to find it.

What information does it have? The barest details. Certainly not enough for anyone hoping to learn anything or decide what study to order. According to the site, you do a WWO or an MRI to characterize the lesion but it gives no information over what characteristics you care about - or if all lesions need that study done. In fact, the little information it gives is not sufficient - you don't need a triple phase scan if the baseline non-contrast scan had an attenuation < 10 HU (which is clearly indicative of a lipid rich adenoma). The AUC allude to that (the noncon scan "Should be evaluated by radiologist to determine if contrast administration is needed.") but even they don't give the details to know whether you even need to order that study.

OK, lets look at thyroid. We'll use the search bar this time, since there's no reasoning to how it's organized. First thing that pops up when I type in thyroid? "Hypothyroidism/Hashimoto's Thyroiditis". All it says under that? Exam: 1. NM I-123 Uptake and Scan. Which is 100% useless in hypothyroidism. Like, quite literally, 100% useless. It gives the clinician zero information. "Thyroid Cancer (Low Risk)" what is the only thing listed? Exam: 1. NM I-123 Whole Body Scan. Which is again, the wrong answer - in a low risk lesion, the only imaging modality we typically use is ultrasound. Which isn't even listed anywhere. In fact, the ultrasound isn't even coming up on the search bar, which is weird... Back to the front page. Nothing seems to be right under "Search By Body Part or System" so I scroll down to ultrasound. Click that. Hey, there's thyroid. What's listed?

"Ultrasound Thyroid Indications • Thyroid Nodule • Thyroid Cancer • Lymphoma • Hashimoto Thyroiditis • Graves Disease • Subacute Thyroiditis • De Quervain Thyroiditis • Goiter • Parathyroid Adenoma"

Are all of those indications for ultrasound all the time? Hell no. Does the page give any information whatsoever on when in those cases you should order an ultrasound? No. It just lists every thyroid condition possible as a possible indication for thyroid ultrasound.

OK, I look at parathyroid. Hey, there's a page for "Increased Parathyroid Hormone Levels". What's listed there? "1. NM Tc 99m Sestamibi Parathyroid Scan with SPECT CT vs Parathyroid 4D CT." Any information on when I should order one compared to the other? No. Hell, ultrasound isn't even listed as a possibility, even though a different page on the site lists it as a possibility for that indication. Do I know which test to order from the information here? Nope.

Etc.

OK, well, maybe the other parts of the site are more useful. Here's where I get more to bad site design - clicking back and forth in the FAQ section rather than just having each question open within the same page is frustrating. The information seems to be decent, though some of it doesn't jibe with what I've learned elsewhere, and it cites few sources and gives few specifics.

Basically, the site has some bare essentials without any of the context to interpret them with, a bunch of the information is entirely uncited, it is difficult to navigate, and on top of all that the information (as presented) is sometimes entirely incorrect for the question being asked.

So yes, at least for the few things I know well, the site is far from solid.

I think the NM section definitely is bare bones and needs work and was probably just thrown in there for completeness sake.

But you are dead wrong on adrenal imaging and it looks like you didn't even use the site. If you type in "Adrenal" into the search bar (seems obvious) I think it gives you a pretty good answer:

Tumor/Mass - Adrenal
Exam Coverage
Exam:
1. CT Adrenal Glands With and Without IV Contrast vs MRI Adrenal Glands With and Without IV Contrast for lesion characterization.
2. CT Abdomen Without IV Contrast vs MRI Abdomen Without IV Contrast for follow up of known adrenal tumors aimed at documenting stability.

Additional Information:
• Stability greater than or equal to 1 year confirms that the adrenal mass is benign and likely an Adrenal Adenoma.
• Benign/asymptomatic Adrenal Adenomas can have subclinical hormone secretion and correlation with routine endocrinologic labs has been suggested for incidental adrenal lesions.
• If the lesion is enlarging or not definitively characterized on imaging as an Adrenal Adenoma, it may require biopsy.
• The diagnosis of Pheochromocytoma should be excluded prior to biopsy with urinary or plasma catecholamine levels and these lesions should not be biopsied without proper pretreatment due to periprocedural hypertensive crisis.

This recommendation is in line with American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC)
AUC 1

And if you go to the bottom of the home page and click on "Adrenal Lesions" under the heading "Management of Incidental Findings". It give you this:

Doing or finding either of those seems quite obvious so I don't know how you could use that as an example. What else do you want? Also, it's either under GU or GI so it seems like if you went that way it wouldn't be too hard to find. What system would you classify the adrenal gland in? It seems to have a lot of cross over so I don't fault the person for just throwing it under GI.

It sounds like your main beef is with the Nuc Med section or imaging relevant to Endocrinology. Again, I think the NM was thrown in for completeness and I agree with you that it could use work.

I feel like you're comparing that website to StatDx or Radiopaedia or other sites which are real companies with massive IT budgets. Whoever built this is clearly just some doc with basic programming skills and pulled all this together solo. Is the search as good as Google? F no it's not, but rads consult isn't Google. Is it a big deal that you have to go to another page to see the answer to your question? C'mon. You sound spoiled.

In conclusion, you didn't really use the site for anything except Nuc Med and endocrine diagnoses (which it sucks at and I'll give you that but HUGE miss on the Adrenal imaging. Don't know how that happened), you're upset that it's not as fancy as other websites (forgetting that it was designed and put out FOR FREE), and you disagree with some of the information on the site. I'm curious what you think is incorrect? I wrote rads consult some feedback and he or she replied the next day and made some changes. Maybe you could help to make it better? I disagreed with a couple things, but not because it's wrong, but because of style. For example, I think CTA and MRA are equal for Carotid dissection provided you use contrast or do 3D time of flight imaging but for some reason the rads consult person prefers CTA over MRA. Neither are incorrect.

Also, I'm still curious about why you think radiologyassistant is not a good site? If you think that's "poorly made" as you said earlier, then I don't know what you think a well made website looks like.

 

[RadsGuy]

Radiopedia is a solid reference for all my cross sectional anatomy study needs during M1 years. Statdx is considered to be the gold standard reference for radiology by some though.

Yea, Radiopaedia is great. I use it all the time. StatDx is also amazing and you're right, probably the gold standard, but unfortunately it's a pretty pricey subscription.

 

[rokshana]

I think the NM section definitely is bare bones and needs work and was probably just thrown in there for completeness sake.

But you are dead wrong on adrenal imaging and it looks like you didn't even use the site. If you type in "Adrenal" into the search bar (seems obvious) I think it gives you a pretty good answer:

Tumor/Mass - Adrenal
Exam Coverage
Exam:
1. CT Adrenal Glands With and Without IV Contrast vs MRI Adrenal Glands With and Without IV Contrast for lesion characterization.
2. CT Abdomen Without IV Contrast vs MRI Abdomen Without IV Contrast for follow up of known adrenal tumors aimed at documenting stability.

Additional Information:
• Stability greater than or equal to 1 year confirms that the adrenal mass is benign and likely an Adrenal Adenoma.
• Benign/asymptomatic Adrenal Adenomas can have subclinical hormone secretion and correlation with routine endocrinologic labs has been suggested for incidental adrenal lesions.
• If the lesion is enlarging or not definitively characterized on imaging as an Adrenal Adenoma, it may require biopsy.
• The diagnosis of Pheochromocytoma should be excluded prior to biopsy with urinary or plasma catecholamine levels and these lesions should not be biopsied without proper pretreatment due to periprocedural hypertensive crisis.

This recommendation is in line with American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC)
AUC 1

And if you go to the bottom of the home page and click on "Adrenal Lesions" under the heading "Management of Incidental Findings". It give you this:

Doing or finding either of those seems quite obvious so I don't know how you could use that as an example. What else do you want? Also, it's either under GU or GI so it seems like if you went that way it wouldn't be too hard to find. What system would you classify the adrenal gland in? It seems to have a lot of cross over so I don't fault the person for just throwing it under GI.

It sounds like your main beef is with the Nuc Med section or imaging relevant to Endocrinology. Again, I think the NM was thrown in for completeness and I agree with you that it could use work.

I feel like you're comparing that website to StatDx or Radiopaedia or other sites which are real companies with massive IT budgets. Whoever built this is clearly just some doc with basic programming skills and pulled all this together solo. Is the search as good as Google? F no it's not, but rads consult isn't Google. Is it a big deal that you have to go to another page to see the answer to your question? C'mon. You sound spoiled.

In conclusion, you didn't really use the site for anything except Nuc Med and endocrine diagnoses (which it sucks at and I'll give you that but HUGE miss on the Adrenal imaging. Don't know how that happened), you're upset that it's not as fancy as other websites (forgetting that it was designed and put out FOR FREE), and you disagree with some of the information on the site. I'm curious what you think is incorrect? I wrote rads consult some feedback and he or she replied the next day and made some changes. Maybe you could help to make it better? I disagreed with a couple things, but not because it's wrong, but because of style. For example, I think CTA and MRA are equal for Carotid dissection provided you use contrast or do 3D time of flight imaging but for some reason the rads consult person prefers CTA over MRA. Neither are incorrect.

Also, I'm still curious about why you think radiologyassistant is not a good site? If you think that's "poorly made" as you said earlier, then I don't know what you think a well made website looks like.

Why are you taking this so personally?whay is your stake in this website?
You asked for feedback and someone gave it to you...and instead of saying thank you and this would be a better way to search, you jump down raryns throat...and the adrenal glands are NEITHER GI or GU...they are endocrine.

Perphaps this thread needs to be moved to the Lounge or classifieds...

 

[ThoracicGuy]

Why are you taking this so personally?whay is your stake in this website?
You asked for feedback and someone gave it to you...and instead of saying thank you and this would be a better way to search, you jump down raryns throat...and the adrenal glands are NEITHER GI or GU...they are endocrine.

Perphaps this thread needs to be moved to the Lounge or classifieds...

 

[RadsGuy]

Why are you taking this so personally?whay is your stake in this website?
You asked for feedback and someone gave it to you...and instead of saying thank you and this would be a better way to search, you jump down raryns throat...and the adrenal glands are NEITHER GI or GU...they are endocrine.

Perphaps this thread needs to be moved to the Lounge or classifieds...

I just posted some radiology websites that I think are helpful (and one method to learn radiology) and asked if anyone has any other helpful radiology websites. I didn't ask for feedback about the design and functionality of those sites. I can't fix them. I'm fine if someone thinks those resources or my suggested method of learning radiology are crap. I'd just like to know why and perhaps suggest something else that we don't know about which is better. That would be useful to this thread.

I also 100% agree with Raryns that the Thyroid work ups are crap. That's helpful information for other people to know that an Endocrinologist has vetted the nuclear medicine section and thinks it's not very good. And I agree with that. Most of the nuclear medicine/endocrine stuff is not helpful in general. No issues with that and it's actually useful information for this thread. Glad he posted that part.

My issue was with the "these sites suck post" and then not providing reasons why radiologyassistant isn't a good site for example. Or nitpicking some detail about how when I click on a question, it displays the question and the answer on a separate page in the FAQ instead of showing the answer to me under the question that I clicked on. Or nitpick Adrenal masses being in the GI instead of the GU section? Does that stuff really matter?

Radiopaedia has issues about the images being too small sometimes or that it's difficult to scroll through stacked images on my phone or that it's search function brings me to cases of the diagnosis rather than the diagnosis page where all the info is. I think I could make those points known without calling the site unusable or mischaracterizing it. I think much (but not all) of Raryn's post was unhelpful for the thread. So I disagreed with his post and provided reasons why. I probably should've left out the "you sound spoiled" comment. Forgive me @Raryns. But other than that, I think the response was fairly civil.

 

[Crayola227]

Raryn was absolutely being rude.

The follow up post that actually included some specific criticisms and valuable corrections to information as well as teaching more about imaging for endocrine issues - that's all legit. That is what we call constructive and educational criticism. Not, oh hey this sucks it's from the 90s.

Any website should try to be as accurate in what it presents as possible. But it doesn't have to be comprehensive. A free website isn't crap if it doesn't teach you subspecialty level information. As I said it's important it doesn't present inaccuracies as were noted.

When after like 3 clicks I didn't find what I wanted, I just used the search function. That isn't hard, it isn't rocket science. Given the overlaps in medicine I'm hardly surprised when I look for anything in any reference, that something could be filed in one or two or three places, so I'm used to having to look more than exactly once or twice for any given bit of information.

It had information for some things at a very general level, and where it didn't have information - I guess that's what U2D or a call to your radiology department is for.

If you're a generalist or a med student and you want to do some review, I think it's a great site. I liked the FAQ section.

 

[d2305]

I liked the images.

 

[Donald Juan]

I think the best way to learn radiology is to look at the scans yourself first, read the radiologists report, then when they don't match up you call the radiologist and ask them why the hell their report is so vague on the findings, then ask them for a definitive answer as to whether the patient has x, y, or z. Then, you bitch them out for overstepping their ground and making a diagnosis that requires a full clinical picture and not just a scan and you tell them to stay in their lane.