Publication pressure in medical imaging.

PURPOSE: To investigate the degree of perceived publication pressure in medical imaging. METHOD: Corresponding authors who published an article in one of the top 12 general radiology journals were invited to complete a survey about publication pressure. The revised Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQr) was used. Higher PPQr scores (5-point Likert scale) indicate a more negative view towards the various domains of publication pressure. RESULTS: 203 corresponding authors participated. Median PPQr scores in the domains "publication stress", "publication attitude", and "publication resources" were 3.33, 3.50, and 3.67, respectively. Age 25-34 years (ß coefficient 0.366, P = 0.047), female gender (ß coefficient 0.293, P = 0.020), and 5-10 years of research experience (ß coefficient 0.370, P = 0.033) were associated with a higher level of perceived publication stress, whereas age ≥ 65 years was negatively associated with perceived publication stress (ß coefficient -0.846, P < 0.001). Age 55-64 years and age > 65 years were associated with a more positive view towards the publication climate (ß coefficients -0.391 and -0.663, P = 0.018 and P = 0.002, respectively). Age 45-54 years was associated with a perception of fewer factors available to alleviate publication pressure (ß coefficient 0.301, P = 0.014), whereas age 25-34 years was associated with a perception of more factors available to alleviate publication pressure (ß coefficient -0.352, P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Perceived publication pressure among medical imaging researchers appears to be appreciable and is associated with several (academic) demographics.

Is work overload associated with diagnostic errors on 18F-FDG-PET/CT?

PURPOSE: To determine the association between workload and diagnostic errors on 18F-FDG-PET/CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 103 18F-FDG-PET/CT scans with a diagnostic error that was corrected with an addendum between March 2018 and July 2023. All scans were performed at a tertiary care center. The workload of each nuclear medicine physician or radiologist who authorized the 18F-FDG-PET/CT report was determined on the day the diagnostic error was made and normalized for his or her own average daily production (workloadnormalized). A workloadnormalized of more than 100% indicates that the nuclear medicine physician or radiologist had a relative work overload, while a value of less than 100% indicates a relative work underload on the day the diagnostic error was made. The time of the day the diagnostic error was made was also recorded. Workloadnormalized was compared to 100% using a signed rank sum test, with the hypothesis that it would significantly exceed 100%. A Mann-Kendall test was performed to test the hypothesis that diagnostic errors would increase over the course of the day. RESULTS: Workloadnormalized (median of 121%, interquartile range: 71 to 146%) on the days the diagnostic errors were made was significantly higher than 100% (P = 0.014). There was no significant upward trend in the frequency of diagnostic errors over the course of the day (Mann-Kendall tau = 0.05, P = 0.7294). CONCLUSION: Work overload seems to be associated with diagnostic errors on 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Diagnostic errors were encountered throughout the entire working day, without any upward trend towards the end of the day.

Work overload and diagnostic errors in radiology.

PURPOSE: To determine the association between workload and diagnostic errors on clinical CT scans. METHOD: This retrospective study was performed at a tertiary care center and covered the period from January 2020 to March 2023. All clinical CT scans that contained an addendum describing a perceptual error (i.e. failure to detect an important abnormality) in the original report that was issued on office days between 7.30 a.m. and 18.00 p.m., were included. The workload of the involved radiologist on the day of the diagnostic error was calculated in terms of relative value units, and normalized for the known average daily production of each individual radiologist (workloadnormalized). A workloadnormalized of less than 100% indicates relative work underload, while a workloadnormalized of > 100% indicates relative work overload in terms of reported examinations on an individual radiologist's basis. RESULTS: A total of 49 diagnostic errors were included. Top-five locations of diagnostic errors were lung (n = 8), bone (n = 8), lymph nodes (n = 5), peritoneum (n = 5), and liver (n = 4). Workloadnormalized on the days the diagnostic errors were made was on average 121% (95% confidence interval: 106% to 136%), which was significantly higher than 100% (P = 0.008). There was no significant upward monotonic trend in diagnostic errors over the course of the day (Mann-Kendall tau of 0.005, P = 1.000), and there were no other notable temporal trends either. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists appear to have a relative work overload when they make a diagnostic error on CT. Diagnostic errors occurred throughout the entire day, without any increase towards the end of the day.