ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Financial illiteracy among internal medicine, surgery, and radiology residents regarding medical imaging costs in the Netherlands.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the knowledge of internal medicine, surgery, and radiology residents of medical imaging costs at a university hospital in the Netherlands.
methodsA survey was conducted among internal medicine, surgery, and radiology residents at a tertiary care university hospital to determine their knowledge and view on medical imaging costs. Participants were asked to estimate the costs of a two-view chest X-ray, unenhanced CT of the brain, unenhanced MRI of the brain, contrast-enhanced CT of the chest and abdomen, ultrasound of the complete abdomen, and FDG-PET and PSMA-PET torso. Estimates within ± 25% of the available published costs were considered accurate.
resultsA total of 44 participants (18 in internal medicine, 15 in surgery, and 11 in radiology) were included. No resident accurately estimated all imaging costs, with accuracies ranging from 18% for contrast-enhanced CT of the chest and abdomen to 39% for two-view chest X-rays. Cost estimation accuracy did not significantly vary by specialty or training duration. Most participants were concerned about the affordability of medical care within or beyond the next five years (80%, 95%), 66% of residents felt that doctors bear responsibility for limiting healthcare costs, and 89% agreed that education about the financial aspects of medical imaging is useful.
conclusionThis study showed that residents are financially illiterate regarding medical imaging costs, and neither the duration of training nor specialty influences their knowledge levels. Nevertheless, residents share common concerns and responsibilities about rising healthcare costs and express a desire for additional education regarding the finance of medical imaging. KEY POINTS: Question Assessing the knowledge levels of residents regarding medical imaging costs provides valuable information for policymakers involved in the design of medical curricula. Findings Residents from internal medicine, surgery, and radiology demonstrate limited knowledge of medical imaging costs but appear eager to learn. Clinical relevance There is a need to educate residents about the costs of medical imaging, promote the efficient use of limited resources, and reduce overall healthcare expenses.
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.