ArticleEuropean radiology2016
Portrayal of radiology in a major medical television series: How does it influence the perception of radiology among patients and radiology professionals?
Article in European radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- TV medical dramas: assessing the portrayal of public health in primetime.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess how the portrayal of Radiology on medical TV shows is perceived by patients and radiology professionals.
methodsIn this IRB-approved study with patient consent waived, surveys were conducted among adult patients scheduled for radiological examinations and radiology professionals. The questionnaire investigated medical TV watching habits including interest in medical TV shows, appearance of radiological examination/staff, radiology's role in diagnosis-making, and rating of the shows' accuracy in portraying radiology relative to reality.
resultsOne hundred and twenty-six patients and 240 professionals (133 technologists, 107 radiologists) participated. 63.5 % patients and 63.2 % technologists rated interest in medical TV shows ≥5 (scale 1-10) versus 38.3 % of radiologists. All groups noted regular (every 2nd/3rd show) to >1/show appearance of radiological examinations in 58.5-88.2 % compared to 21.0-46.2 % for radiological staff appearance. Radiology played a role in diagnosis-making regularly to >1/show in 45.3-52.6 %. There is a positive correlation for interest in medical TV and the perception that radiology is accurately portrayed for patients (r = 0.49; P = 0.001) and technologists (r = 0.38; P = 0.001) but not for radiologists (r = 0.01).
conclusionsThe majority of patients perceive the portrayed content as accurate. Radiologists should be aware of this cultivation effect to understand their patients' behaviour which may create false expectations towards radiological examinations and potential safety hazards. KEY POINTS: • Radiology in medical TV shows is conveyed as important in diagnosis making • Presence of radiological staff is less frequent compared to examinations shown • Positive correlation for interest in medical TV and radiology perceived as accurate • TV experience may create false expectations and potential safety hazards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26560733What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.