ArticleClinical imaging2022
Radiology trainee and attending satisfaction with virtual readouts during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Clinical imaging, 2022. 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.
- From Artificial Intelligence to Robotics: How to Navigate Technological Innovation in Radiology With the Gartner Hype Cycle.Academic radiology · 2026Review
- Effective remote clinical teaching: leveraging technology to improve Radiology Case readouts.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Status and perceptions of work from home in three academic musculoskeletal radiology divisions.Skeletal radiology · 2025Article
- Evidence for an adverse impact of remote readouts on radiology resident productivity: Implications for training and clinical practice.PLOS digital health · 2023Article
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
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesIn response to COVID-19, our institution implemented three virtual readout systems: a commercial HIPAA compliant web-based video conferencing platform used for screen-sharing (Starleaf), an interactive control sharing system integrated into PACS allowing simultaneous multi-user mouse control over images (Collaborate), and the telephone. Our aim was to assess overall satisfaction with and perceived effectiveness of these virtual readout methods to optimize best practices for the future. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn IRB-exempt survey was electronically distributed to 64 trainees and 76 attendings at one tertiary-care institution via Survey Monkey. Questions focused on overall satisfaction, perceived effectiveness, technical difficulties, and continued future use of the three virtual readout strategies. Answers were collected with Likert scales, tick boxes, and open-ended questions.
results32/64 trainees (50%) and 32/76 attendings (42%) completed the survey. Trainees and attendings were more satisfied with screen sharing (Starleaf) and perceived it more effective than control sharing (Collaborate) or the telephone (p < 0.0001). Respondents experienced more technical difficulties with control sharing versus screen sharing (p = 0.0004) with a negative correlation between level of technical difficulties and satisfaction with screen sharing (r = -0.50, p < 0.0001) and control sharing (r = -0.38, p = 0.0006). Trainees and faculty supported a combination of in-person and virtual readouts in the future (p < 0.0001).
conclusionPlatforms mirroring in-person readouts, such as Starleaf, are preferred by both trainees and attendings over non-screen sharing platforms such as the telephone. However, technical stability determines satisfaction between similar platforms. Both trainees and attendings support incorporation of virtual readout methods in combination with traditional in-person readouts in the post-COVID-19 era.
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.