ArticlePediatric radiology2026
The impossible hustle, sustaining pediatric radiology research amidst clinical demands: insights from a European society of pediatric radiology research committee survey.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2026. 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.
- Prompting the future: artificial intelligence in pediatric radiology.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Perspectives on the future of artificial intelligence in paediatric radiology.Pediatric 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerforming basic or clinical research within medicine faces significant demographic, structural, and financial constraints. These pressures also affect pediatric radiology, where limited funding and growing clinical demands intensify challenges.
objectiveTo examine how pediatric radiologists define research activities, assess their reported allocation of time to research, and identify systemic barriers that affect engagement in research. MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective multicenter survey was distributed to 1625 ESPR members via Qualtrics in 2025. Data on research definitions, time allocation, funding streams, and perceived barriers were analyzed.
resultsEighty-eight members (5.5% response rate) from 32 different countries of practice of survey respondents completed the survey, with approximately one-third from each of early-career, mid-career, and late-career groups. Research activities were defined as "writing and presenting at conferences" (81.8%), conducting laboratory-based or clinical research (75.3%), and grant writing (64.9%). Seventy-nine reported having the lowest amount of protected research time (0-10%; "minimal to none"), although 74% of respondents had published in peer-reviewed journals. The most frequently perceived barriers to research were lack of time (79%) and insufficient funding (60%).
conclusionAmong survey responders, research activity is significantly sustained, despite minimal structural support, reflecting what may be described as an impossible hustle. Common definitions of research and the allocation of protected research time are necessary to better support this engagement and safeguard the future of the subspecialty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42189170What 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.