RFS news highlights resources, issues, and news relevant to in-training members of the ACR. If you have a topic idea or would like to contribute to the blog, please email RFS Secretary Patricia Balthazar, MD.




JACR® January Highlights




Pirated Manuscripts From Radiology’s Most Impactful Journals: An International Analysis of Copyright-Infringing Downloads

Sci-Hub is the world’s largest website of “pirated” scholarly articles, allowing bypass of the typical paywalls for viewing scholarly literature. Radiology and medical literature is frequently accessed via Sci-Hub. The authors reviewed download requests from Sci-Hub’s publicly accessible server logs for high-impact radiology and radiation oncology journals from September 2015 through February 2016. Approximately 0.4 percent (105,075) of download requests were received for radiology/radiation oncology articles from 49 of the highest impact journals included. The highest number of downloads were from Radiology (10,357 of 105,075; 9.9 percent), NeuroImage (10,121; 9.6 percent), the International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology (8,025; 7.6 percent), and the American Journal of Roentgenology (7,676; 7.3 percent). “By country, download requests were most frequent from China (17,973 of 105,075; 17.1 percent), India (7,965; 7.6 percent), and Iran (6,402; 6.0 percent). However, downloads on a per capita basis were most common in Portugal (210.8 per one million population), Chile (135.4), and Tunisia (113.8).” Academic publishing is going through a dramatic transition to more accessible, flexible, and digital forms and radiology is not immune from this shift.

Cost Implications of Oral Contrast Administration in the ED: A Time-Driven, Activity-Based Costing Analysis

The authors attempted to quantify financial and time costs of oral contrast administration in the ED for patients presenting with nontraumatic abdominal pain. Data was obtained using both prospective time studies and retrospective data. Multivariate analysis was performed with regards to a policy change eliminating oral contrast for patients with body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2, no prior abdominal surgery within 30 days preceding CT, and no inflammatory bowel disease to estimate cost savings: “Applying parameters from the new policy change reduced the annual cost by 52 percent (cost saving: $35,836.57)... Impact of oral contrast on time to discharge was highly variable and dependent on the contrast agent utilized.”

The Resident Preliminary Report

“Dozens of publications analyzing RADPEER discrepancy rates between attending and resident radiology interpretations, and they have generally found that major discrepancies occur approximately 1 percent to 2 percent of the time.” However, overnight resident preliminary reporting remains a highly contentious subject of discussion in radiology training. Institutions that rely on resident preliminary reads for overnight coverage may have to wait as long as 8–12 hours for a finalized radiology report, and, although anecdotally the “independent call experience” is often considered a vital component of resident training, there is little hard evidence demonstrating its necessity. This leads to tension between the competing interests of emergency physicians, radiology residents, radiology faculty, and institution administration regarding the educational versus patient-care missions of academic hospitals. Currently, independent radiology resident call coverage is on the decline, but the conversation must continue to keep training residents capable of providing the best patient care possible.

Underrepresentation of Women on Radiology Editorial Boards

While it is known that women in radiology are underrepresented in academic leadership positions, the authors sought to determine the representation of women on editorial boards and editor-in-chief positions relative to their contributions to the literature. Gender breakdowns of women authors demonstrated approximately 29.3 percent of first authors and 20.7 percent of senior authors were women in accepted publications from nine high-impact radiology journals from 2002–2017. However, women only represented approximately 13.4 percent of editorial board members, and this discrepancy remained essentially stable for the 16 years reviewed. Additionally, no women were editors-in-chief of the included publications. This demonstrates a gender gap within the scientific and academic radiology community which major journals may want to address moving into 2019 and beyond.

Share this content

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn