ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2025
Expected Trainee Interpretive Volumes and Potential Threats to Neuroradiology Program Viability: A Survey of Neuroradiology Fellowship Program Directors.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeNationally clinical volumes are rising, putting greater pressure on radiologists to read more and in turn jeopardizing the academic missions of many training programs. The purpose of this study was to survey neuroradiology fellowship program directors (PDs) to identify reasonable expected trainee and faculty interpretive volumes, common barriers to study interpretation, and threats to fellowship program viability. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was an institutional review board-approved survey study disseminated to neuroradiology fellowship PDs through the American Society of Neuroradiology. This Web-based survey included basic program information regarding practice setting, faculty size, fellowship size, and multiple questions related to interpretative volumes, barriers to study interpretation, threats to program viability, etc. Summary statistics were computed for count and rank variables. For survey questions by using ranking, cumulative ranks across all institutions were computed with a statistical ranking procedure based on Savage scores.
resultsForty-three of 85 PDs responded to the survey. Median daily interpretive expectations for fellows were 20 daily cases during the first 6 months of the year and 30 during the second 6 months. Median daily interpretive expectations for faculty working with fellows was 32 daily cases during the first 6 months of the year and 38.5 during the second 6 months. Telephone calls from technologists and referring clinicians and protocoling were identified as major barriers to interpreting studies. Perceived major threats to program viability included increasing case volumes, understaffing, and burnout.
conclusionsReasonable interpretive volumes determined by fellowship directors ranged between 20-30 daily cases for fellows and 32-38.5 daily cases for faculty working with fellows. Common barriers to interpretation were related to phone call interruptions and protocoling. Perceived major program viability threats remain centered on increasing clinical volumes and burnout.
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.