Search

Rationale and Objectives To assess resident and fellowship program director (PD) perceptions of the abdominal radiology fellowship application process following the first cycle in which an embargo on interviews until December 1, 2019 was set according to the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiology Departments (SCARD) timeline for the 2021–2022 abdominal imaging fellowship year. Materials and Methods Eligible study participants included fellowship PDs of all abdominal imaging programs in the United States and residents that attended the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) 2020 Annual Meeting. A questionnaire was developed by content and survey experts, pilot tested, and administered from May to June 2020. Results A total of 39% (36/92) of all PDs and 30% (46/152) of all individuals identified as residents with valid email addresses that attended the SAR 2020 Annual Meeting responded to the survey with an overall response rate of 34%. Only 42% of PDs and 33% of residents supported moving to a match, while 62% of PDs and 70% of residents thought that a match would limit the autonomy of applicants. While most PDs and residents also agreed that the first iteration of the SCARD timeline allowed residents to make a more informed choice, the majority of PDs were dissatisfied with their experience. Most PDs and residents additionally want applications to be accepted no earlier than July and/or August of the R3 year (initial SCARD guidelines did not restrict timing), interviews to begin on November 1st or earlier of the R3 year (compared to December 1st set in the first iteration of the guidelines), and a gap of 2–4 weeks between the date of first interviews and notification of first offers (initial SCARD guidelines did not restrict timing). Lastly, an overwhelming majority of PDs and residents agreed that SAR should enforce the abdominal imaging fellowship application process. Conclusion Following the first cycle of abdominal imaging fellowship applications conducted according to the SCARD guidelines, a majority of trainees and PDs felt the changes were favorable and were opposed to a formal match. Specific suggestions for improvement were elicited from stakeholders and will be incorporated for the next cycle.

Survey research is appealing to many clinical researchers, including radiologists. Emerging interest in patient preferences and patient-centered outcomes related to imaging likely will stimulate additional use of questionnaires in our field. However, like other quantitative methods, survey-based research requires meticulous planning, execution, and analysis to generate reliable results and support meaningful conclusions. The purpose of this review is to provide a guideline for radiologists embarking on this type of research, with attention to questionnaire design, sampling, survey administration, and analysis.

Rationale and Objectives Women with pelvic pain or abnormal uterine bleeding may undergo diagnostic imaging. This study evaluates patient experience in transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and explores correlations between preference and symptom severity. Materials and Methods Institutional review board approval was obtained for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant prospective study. Fifty premenopausal women with pelvic symptoms evaluated by recent TVUS and MRI and without history of gynecologic cancer or hysterectomy were included. A phone questionnaire used validated survey instruments including Uterine Fibroid Symptoms Quality of Life index, Testing Morbidities Index, and Wait Trade Off for TVUS and MRI examinations. Results Using Wait Trade Off, patients preferred TVUS over MRI (3.58 vs 2.80 weeks, 95% confidence interval [CI] −1.63, 0.12; P = .08). Summary test utility of Testing Morbidities Index for MRI was worse than for TVUS (81.64 vs 87.42, 95%CI 0.41, 11.15; P = .03). Patients reported greater embarrassment during TVUS than during MRI (P Conclusion Women with pelvic symptoms had a slight but significant preference for TVUS over MRI. Identifying specific distressing aspects of each test and patient factors contributing to negative perceptions can direct improvement in both test environment and patient preparation. Improved patient experience may increase imaging value.

Survey research is appealing to many clinical researchers, including radiologists. Emerging interest in patient preferences and patient-centered outcomes related to imaging likely will stimulate additional use of questionnaires in our field. However, like other quantitative methods, survey-based research requires meticulous planning, execution, and analysis to generate reliable results and support meaningful conclusions. The purpose of this review is to provide a guideline for radiologists embarking on this type of research, with attention to questionnaire design, sampling, survey administration, and analysis.

Rationale and Objectives To implement a preprocedural checklist in gastrointestinal (GI)/genitourinary (GU) fluoroscopy suites to assist radiology residents in performing studies with optimal fluoroscopic technique with a goal to lower radiation dose delivered to patients and operators. Materials and Methods We introduced a preprocedural checklist in the form of a mnemonic to first-year resident fluoroscopy operators. The checklist was augmented by teaching sessions at the fluoroscopy tower. Fluoroscopy time (FT) was collected for GI/GU fluoroscopy studies performed by first-year residents who did not use the checklist (year 1) and compared with FT from first-year residents who used the checklist for one full academic year (year 2). Residents in both groups were surveyed to assess their knowledge of radiation safety at the end of their respective radiology 1 (R1) academic years. Results A total of 778 examinations were analyzed from year 1, and 941 total examinations from year 2. After implementation of the checklist, mean FT for all studies decreased by 41.1 seconds ( P P = .144). Conclusions A visual preprocedural radiation safety checklist in GI/GU fluoroscopy was associated with a reduction in mean FT and may contribute to a culture of radiation safety awareness.

Women with pelvic pain or abnormal uterine bleeding may undergo diagnostic imaging. This study evaluates patient experience in transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and explores correlations between preference and symptom severity.Institutional review board approval was obtained for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant prospective study. Fifty premenopausal women with pelvic symptoms evaluated by recent TVUS and MRI and without history of gynecologic cancer or hysterectomy were included. A phone questionnaire used validated survey instruments including Uterine Fibroid Symptoms Quality of Life index, Testing Morbidities Index, and Wait Trade Off for TVUS and MRI examinations.Using Wait Trade Off, patients preferred TVUS over MRI (3.58 vs 2.80 weeks, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.63, 0.12; P = .08). Summary test utility of Testing Morbidities Index for MRI was worse than for TVUS (81.64 vs 87.42, 95%CI 0.41, 11.15; P = .03). Patients reported greater embarrassment during TVUS than during MRI (P .0001), but greater fear and anxiety both before (P .0001) and during (P .001) MRI, and greater mental (P = .02) and physical (P = .02) problems after MRI versus TVUS. Subscale correlations showed physically inactive women rated TVUS more negatively (R = -0.32, P = .03), whereas women with more severe symptoms of loss of control of health (R = -0.28, P = .04) and sexual dysfunction (R = -0.30, P = .03) rated MRI more negatively.Women with pelvic symptoms had a slight but significant preference for TVUS over MRI. Identifying specific distressing aspects of each test and patient factors contributing to negative perceptions can direct improvement in both test environment and patient preparation. Improved patient experience may increase imaging value.

Rationale and Objectives This study aimed to determine whether uterine leiomyoma can be distinguished from uterine leiomyosarcoma on ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) without diffusion-weighted imaging. Materials and Methods Institutional review board approval was obtained and informed consent was waived for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant retrospective case-control diagnostic accuracy study. All subjects with resected uterine leiomyosarcoma diagnosed over a 17-year period (1998–2014) at a single institution for whom pre-resection US ( n = 10), CT ( n = 11), or MRI ( n = 7) was available were matched by tumor size and imaging modality with 28 subjects with resected uterine leiomyoma. Six blinded radiologists (three attendings, three residents) assigned 5-point Likert scores for the following features: (1) margins, (2) necrosis, (3) hemorrhage, (4) vascularity, (5) calcifications, (6) heterogeneity, and (7) likelihood of malignancy (primary end point). Mean suspicion scores were calculated and receiver operating characteristic curves were generated. The ability of individual morphologic features to predict malignancy was assessed with logistic regression. Results Mean suspicion scores were 2.5 ± 1.2 (attendings) and 2.4 ± 1.3 (residents) for leiomyoma, and 2.7 ± 1.3 (attendings) and 2.7 ± 1.4 (residents) for leiomyosarcoma. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (range: 0.330–0.685) were not significantly different from chance, either overall ( P = .36–.88) or by any modality ( P = .28–.96), for any reader. Reader experience had no effect on diagnostic accuracy. No morphologic parameter was significantly predictive of malignancy ( P = .10–.97). Conclusions Uterine leiomyoma cannot be differentiated accurately from leiomyosarcoma on US, CT, or MRI without diffusion-weighted imaging.