Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Diagnostic radiology and its future: what do clinicians need and think?

View through CrossRef
Abstract Objective To investigate the view of clinicians on diagnostic radiology and its future. Methods Corresponding authors who published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet between 2010 and 2022 were asked to participate in a survey about diagnostic radiology and its future. Results The 331 participating clinicians gave a median score of 9 on a 0–10 point scale to the value of medical imaging in improving patient-relevant outcomes. 40.6%, 15.1%, 18.9%, and 9.5% of clinicians indicated to interpret more than half of radiography, ultrasonography, CT, and MRI examinations completely by themselves, without consulting a radiologist or reading the radiology report. Two hundred eighty-nine clinicians (87.3%) expected an increase in medical imaging utilization in the coming 10 years, whereas 9 clinicians (2.7%) expected a decrease. The need for diagnostic radiologists in the coming 10 years was expected to increase by 162 clinicians (48.9%), to remain stable by 85 clinicians (25.7%), and to decrease by 47 clinicians (14.2%). Two hundred clinicians (60.4%) expected that artificial intelligence (AI) will not make diagnostic radiologists redundant in the coming 10 years, whereas 54 clinicians (16.3%) thought the opposite. Conclusion Clinicians who published in the New England Journal of Medicine or the Lancet attribute high value to medical imaging. They generally need radiologists for cross-sectional imaging interpretation, but for a considerable proportion of radiographs, their service is not required. Most expect medical imaging utilization and the need for diagnostic radiologists to increase in the foreseeable future, and do not expect AI to make radiologists redundant. Clinical relevance statement The views of clinicians on radiology and its future may be used to determine how radiology should be practiced and be further developed. Key Points • Clinicians generally regard medical imaging as high-value care and expect to use more medical imaging in the future. • Clinicians mainly need radiologists for cross-sectional imaging interpretation while they interpret a substantial proportion of radiographs completely by themselves. • The majority of clinicians expects that the need for diagnostic radiologists will not decrease (half of them even expect that we need more) and does not believe that AI will replace radiologists.
Title: Diagnostic radiology and its future: what do clinicians need and think?
Description:
Abstract Objective To investigate the view of clinicians on diagnostic radiology and its future.
Methods Corresponding authors who published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet between 2010 and 2022 were asked to participate in a survey about diagnostic radiology and its future.
Results The 331 participating clinicians gave a median score of 9 on a 0–10 point scale to the value of medical imaging in improving patient-relevant outcomes.
40.
6%, 15.
1%, 18.
9%, and 9.
5% of clinicians indicated to interpret more than half of radiography, ultrasonography, CT, and MRI examinations completely by themselves, without consulting a radiologist or reading the radiology report.
Two hundred eighty-nine clinicians (87.
3%) expected an increase in medical imaging utilization in the coming 10 years, whereas 9 clinicians (2.
7%) expected a decrease.
The need for diagnostic radiologists in the coming 10 years was expected to increase by 162 clinicians (48.
9%), to remain stable by 85 clinicians (25.
7%), and to decrease by 47 clinicians (14.
2%).
Two hundred clinicians (60.
4%) expected that artificial intelligence (AI) will not make diagnostic radiologists redundant in the coming 10 years, whereas 54 clinicians (16.
3%) thought the opposite.
Conclusion Clinicians who published in the New England Journal of Medicine or the Lancet attribute high value to medical imaging.
They generally need radiologists for cross-sectional imaging interpretation, but for a considerable proportion of radiographs, their service is not required.
Most expect medical imaging utilization and the need for diagnostic radiologists to increase in the foreseeable future, and do not expect AI to make radiologists redundant.
Clinical relevance statement The views of clinicians on radiology and its future may be used to determine how radiology should be practiced and be further developed.
Key Points • Clinicians generally regard medical imaging as high-value care and expect to use more medical imaging in the future.
• Clinicians mainly need radiologists for cross-sectional imaging interpretation while they interpret a substantial proportion of radiographs completely by themselves.
• The majority of clinicians expects that the need for diagnostic radiologists will not decrease (half of them even expect that we need more) and does not believe that AI will replace radiologists.

Related Results

AI and Incidental Findings
AI and Incidental Findings
Photo by Accuray on Unsplash INTRODUCTION Delayed and missed follow-up on incidental findings threatens patient health and is a major financial risk for healthcare systems. The hea...
Suffering of Patients with Neurogenic Thoracic Outlet Syndrome (TOS); The First Qualitative study in TOS
Suffering of Patients with Neurogenic Thoracic Outlet Syndrome (TOS); The First Qualitative study in TOS
Abstract Background Diagnosis of neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome (nTOS) is hindered by symptom overlap with cervical radiculopathy, carpal tunnel syndrome, or psychosomatic dis...
Provocative Tests in Diagnosis of Thoracic Outlet Syndrome: A Narrative Review
Provocative Tests in Diagnosis of Thoracic Outlet Syndrome: A Narrative Review
Abstract Thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) is a group of conditions caused by the compression of the neurovascular bundle within the thoracic outlet. It is classified into three main ...
Enhancing Clinicians’ Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Outpatient Care: Mixed Methods Study
Enhancing Clinicians’ Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Outpatient Care: Mixed Methods Study
Background Despite the increasing use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for collecting self-reported data among hospital outpatients, clinicians’ use of thes...
Beyond Turf Wars: Redefining Boundaries and Building Consensus in Interventional Radiology
Beyond Turf Wars: Redefining Boundaries and Building Consensus in Interventional Radiology
Abstract Interventional radiology (IR) has evolved from diagnostic angiography to a core therapeutic specialty addressing acute ischemic stroke, peripheral arteri...
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ITS ROLE IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ITS ROLE IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
As Artificial intelligence (AI) continues to expand, ingress and impact how clinicians and physicians have worked for centuries. On paper the availability of a technology that is t...

Back to Top