ReviewJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Medical workforce in the United States.
Review in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Job satisfaction and factors involved in transitioning from the clinical practice of interventional radiology.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- AI solutions to the radiology workforce shortage.npj health systems · 2025Review
- German radiation oncology's next generation: a web-based survey of young biologists, medical physicists, and physicians-from problems to solutions.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2024Article
- Highlighting the NIAID Radiation and Nuclear Countermeasures Program's Commitment to Training and Diversifying the Radiation Workforce.Radiation research · 2024Article
- Medical workforce in the United States.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This section focuses on the professional workforce comprised of the primary medical specialties that utilize ionizing radiation in their practices. Those discussed include the specialties of radiology and radiation oncology, as well as the subspecialties of radiology, namely diagnostic radiology, interventional radiology, nuclear radiology, and nuclear medicine. These professionals provide essential health care services, for example, the interpretation of imaging studies, the provision of interventional procedures, radionuclide therapeutic treatments, and radiation therapy. In addition, they may be called on to function as part of a radiologic emergency response team to care for potentially exposed persons following radiation events, for example, detonation of a nuclear weapon, nuclear power plant accidents, and transportation incidents. For these reasons, maintenance of an adequate workforce in each of these professions is essential to meeting the nation's future needs. Currently, there is a shortage for all physicians in the medical radiology workforce.
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.