Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35277726›Full record

ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2022

The Impact of COVID-19 on Interventional Radiology Practice Worldwide: Results from a Global Survey.

F Gomez, P Reimer, P L Pereira, C Bent, R L Cazzato, M Das, A Diamantopoulos, B Zeka, N Kaufmann, G Makris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: the RESONANCE Spanish registry.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

F GomezInterventional Radiology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
P ReimerDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.
P L PereiraRadiology, Minimally Invasive Therapies and Nuclearmedicine, SLK-Clinics GmbH Heilbronn, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, Heilbronn, Germany.
C BentInterventional Radiology, University Hospitals Dorset, Bournemouth, UK.
R L CazzatoInterventional Radiology, University Hospital of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France.
M DasDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Helios Klinikum Duisburg, Duisburg, Germany.
A DiamantopoulosDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
B ZekaClinical Research Department, Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe, Neutorgasse 9, 1010, Vienna, Austria. zeka@cirse.org.
N KaufmannClinical Research Department, Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe, Neutorgasse 9, 1010, Vienna, Austria.
G MakrisFaculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, Kings College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic had an unprecedented impact on clinical practice and healthcare professionals. We aimed to assess how interventional radiology services (IR services) were impacted by the pandemic and describe adaptations to services and working patterns across the first two waves.

methodsAn anonymous six-part survey created using an online service was distributed as a single-use web link to 7125 members of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe via email. Out of 450 respondents, 327 who completed the survey at least partially including 278 who completed the full survey were included into the analysis.

resultsInterventional radiologists (IRs) reported that the overall workload decreased a lot (18%) or mildly (36%) or remained stable (29%), and research activities were often delayed (30% in most/all projects, 33% in some projects). Extreme concerns about the health of families, patients and general public were reported by 43%, 34% and 40%, respectively, and 29% reported having experienced significant stress (25% quite a bit; 23% somewhat). Compared to the first wave, significant differences were seen regarding changes to working patterns, effect on emergency work, outpatient and day-case services in the second wave. A total of 59% of respondents felt that their organisation was better prepared for a third wave. A total of 19% and 39% reported that the changes implemented would be continued or potentially continued on a long-term basis.

conclusionWhile the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected IR services in terms of workload, research activity and emotional burden, IRs seem to have improved the own perception of adaptation and preparation for further waves of the pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19HumansPandemicsRadiologistsRadiology, InterventionalSurveys and QuestionnairesCoronavirusCOVID-19Interventional radiologyIRIR servicesPandemicSecond wave

Identifiers

PMID35277726
PMCPMC8916069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.