ArticleSkeletal radiology2025
Status and perceptions of work from home in three academic musculoskeletal radiology divisions.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Maintaining a healthy work environment with hybrid and remote pediatric radiologists.Pediatric radiology · 2026Review
- Survey of the musculoskeletal radiology workforce: hybrid and remote (work from home) practice models.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study is to assess the status and perception of work from home (WFH) in three academic musculoskeletal radiology divisions. MATERIALS AND
methodsA 17-item anonymous online survey related to WFH was administered to all musculoskeletal (MSK) faculty (n = 27) of three academic radiology divisions between April and July 2023. Survey items included demographics, clinical work environment, presence of a WFH policy, number of days WFH and desired WFH days, commute, perceived benefits and drawbacks of WFH, and symptoms of burnout. Statistical analysis included the Cochrane-Armitage trend test and Fisher exact test. The study was exempt from IRB approval.
resultsThe survey response rate was 85% (57% men, 57% white, 57% established career, defined by > 10 years in practice). In 47%, an informal policy allowed WHF on certain rotations including moonlighting/call. Seventeen percent had no opportunity to WFH. WFH 1-2 days/week was reported in 73% of respondents while 27% did not WFH. None of the respondents worked from home more than 2 days/week. Women worked from home more compared to men (p = 0.02). Perceived advantages of WFH included efficiency (no commute/parking) (76%), flexibility (52%), autonomy (33%), and increased productivity (29%). Fifty-seven percent preferred in-person read out particularly for first year trainees, with 52% preferring a virtual or hybrid model.
conclusionWFH is common in academic MSK practices and perceived to be beneficial to MSK faculty. These findings should be taken into consideration when designing WFH policies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39289200What 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.