ArticleDer Radiologe2020
[Interdisciplinary tumor boards in the radiological routine : Current situation based on an online survey in Germany].
Article in Der Radiologe, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- [Artificial intelligence in radiology : Literature overview and reading recommendations].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Challenges and perspectives in use of artificial intelligence to support treatment recommendations in clinical oncology.Cancer medicine · 2024Review
- [Requirements and value of interdisciplinary communication and consultation].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeInterdisciplinary tumor boards are periodical conferences, where optimal individual therapy plans are developed among medical experts with different specializations. The presence of a board-certified radiologist is medically indispensable in almost all relevant boards. In order to systematically evaluate the current workload for radiologists caused by these boards, we evaluated the current situation within German radiology to obtain numbers for future personnel planning. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed an online survey. We invited all 33 German university chairmen and 50 randomly selected head physicians of radiology at level 3 hospitals to participate.
resultsWe had a participation rate of 79% (26/33) at university hospitals and 56% (28/50) at of level 3 non-university hospitals. The average total number of tumor boards was 3.3/day or 16.7/week at university hospitals and 2.6/day or 13/week at level 3 non-university hospitals. We calculated an average time considering preparation and execution as well as the average number of boards of 33.1 h/week for university hospitals and 18.2 h/week for level 3 hospitals. This results in a 78.8% workload for a board-certified radiologist at a university hospital (regular weekly work time 42 h) and 45.5% work load for level 3 hospitals (regular weekly work time 40 h).
conclusion"Speaking radiology" as in interdisciplinary tumor boards represents a fundamental matter of course in radiology. The active participation in boards accomplished by radiologists improves evidence-based patient care. However, given the prevailing scarcity of resources in medicine, the data collected here regarding personnel costs for clinical radiology for participation in tumor boards must be taken into account in future discussions on personnel compensation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.