Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35652937›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2022

Virtual conferences: results of an international survey on radiologist preferences and perspectives.

Gennaro D'Anna, Lorenzo Ugga, Renato Cuocolo, Melissa Mei Chen, Deborah Rachelle Shatzkes, Emin Turgut Tali, Amy Patel, Amy Louise Kotsenas, Johan Van Goethem, Tushar Garg and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Gennaro D'AnnaNeuroimaging Unit, ASST Ovest Milanese, Legnano, Italy. gennaro.danna@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9890-9359
Lorenzo UggaDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Renato CuocoloDepartment of Medicine, Surgery, and Dentistry, University of Salerno, Baronissi, Italy.
Melissa Mei ChenDepartment of Neuroradiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
Deborah Rachelle ShatzkesDepartment of Radiology, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Lenox Hill Hospital and The New York Head and Neck Institute, New York, NY, USA.
Emin Turgut TaliDepartment of Radiology, Gazi University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Amy PatelDepartment of Radiology, Liberty Hospital, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City, MO, USA.
Amy Louise KotsenasDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Johan Van GoethemDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium.
Tushar GargSeth GS Medical College & KEM Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Joshua Adam HirschMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Luis Martí-BonmatíMedical Imaging Department, La Fe University and Polytechnic Hospital, Valencia, Spain.
Frank GaillardFaculty of Medicine, Dentistry, and Health Sciences at the University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
Erik RanschaertDepartment of Radiology, Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital (ETZ), Tilburg, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe explored perceptions and preferences regarding the conversion of in-person to virtual conferences as necessitated by travel and in-person meeting restrictions.

methodsA 16-question online survey to assess preferences regarding virtual conferences during the COVID-19 pandemic and future perspectives on this subject was disseminated internationally online between June and August 2020.

findingsA total of 508 responses were received from 73 countries. The largest number of responses came from Italy and the USA. The majority of respondents had already attended a virtual conference (80%) and would like to attend future virtual meetings (97%). The ideal duration of such an event was 2-3 days (42%). The preferred time format was a 2-4-h session (43%). Most respondents also noted that they would like a significant fee reduction and the possibility to attend a conference partly in-person and partly online. Respondents indicated educational sessions as the most valuable sections of virtual meetings. The reported positive factor of the virtual meeting format is the ability to re-watch lectures on demand. On the other hand, the absence of networking and human contact was recognized as a significant loss. In the future, people expressed a preference to attend conferences in person for networking purposes, but only in safer conditions.

conclusionsRespondents appreciated the opportunity to attend the main radiological congresses online and found it a good opportunity to stay updated without having to travel. However, in general, they would prefer these conferences to be structured differently. The lack of networking opportunities was the main reason for preferring an in-person meeting. KEY POINTS: • Respondents appreciated the opportunity to attend the main radiological meetings online, considering it a good opportunity to stay updated without having to travel. • In the future, it is likely for congresses to offer attendance options both in person and online, making them more accessible to a larger audience. • Respondents indicated that networking represents the most valuable advantage of in-person conferences compared to online ones.

Indexed as

COVID-19RadiologyHumansPandemicsRadiologistsSurveys and QuestionnairesRadiologySurveyVideoconferencing

Identifiers

PMID35652937
PMCPMC9159931

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.