Redesign of the American Board of Radiology Diagnostic Radiology Certifying Examination.

On April 13, 2023, the American Board of Radiology (ABR) announced plans to replace the current computer-based diagnostic radiology (DR) certifying examination with a new oral examination to be administered remotely, beginning in 2028. This article describes the planned changes and the process that led to those changes. In keeping with its commitment to continuous improvement, the ABR gathered input regarding the DR initial certification process. Respondents generally agreed that the qualifying (core) examination was satisfactory but expressed concerns regarding the computer-based certifying examination's effectiveness and impact on training. Examination redesign was conducted using input from key groups with a goal of effectively evaluating competence and incentivizing study behaviors that best prepare candidates for radiology practice. Major design elements included examination structure, breadth and depth of content, and timing. The new oral examination will focus on critical findings as well as common and important diagnoses routinely encountered in all diagnostic specialties, including radiology procedures. Candidates will first be eligible for the examination in the calendar year after residency graduation. Additional details will be finalized and announced in coming years. The ABR will continue to engage with interested parties throughout the implementation process.

The American Board of Radiology B. Leonard Holman Research Pathway to Initial Certification: Opportunities Lost for Diagnostic Radiology.

OBJECTIVE: In 1998, the American Board of Radiology introduced the B. Leonard Holman Research Pathway (HRP) to initial certification for trainees in diagnostic radiology (DR) and radiation oncology (RO) motivated to pursue research-oriented careers in academic DR and RO. CONCLUSION: The HRP Committee anticipated that there would be a relatively even distribution between DR and RO participants, but with 18 years of experience that has not been the case. This article focuses on the HRP and DR.

Predictors for Failing the American Board of Radiology Core Examination.

OBJECTIVE. Since the American Board of Radiology (ABR) instituted its new board certification pathway, our residency program has had more residents fail the core examination than was typical with the prior pathway. We performed a single-center retrospective study to evaluate predictors of ABR core examination failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Data regarding U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) steps 1 and 2, ACR diagnostic radiology in-training examinations, the number of image interpretations, academic degree (doctor of medicine or doctor of osteopathy), status as an American or foreign medical graduate, and Alpha Omega Alpha national medical honor society status were gathered and evaluated through logistic regression and generalized additive logistic regression. Data were gathered for all residents who took the ABR core examination from 2013 to 2017. RESULTS. Six of 30 residents (20%) failed the ABR core examination on the first attempt. The ACR in-training examination scores for 1st- and 3rd-year residents were significantly related to ABR core examination failure (p = 0.027 and p = 0.035, respectively), with significant nonlinearity (p = 0.037 and p = 0.033, respectively). The suggested baseline percentile score was the 30th percentile for 1st-year residents and the 20th percentile for 3rd-year residents. USMLE step 1 and 2 scores were significantly related to ABR core examination failure (p = 0.041 and p = 0.043, respectively), without significant nonlinearity (p = 0.35 and p = 0.09, respectively). However, residents with scores of less than 220 on USMLE steps 1 and 2 seemed to be at risk. CONCLUSION. Low scores on USMLE steps 1 and 2 and 1st- and 3rd-year ACR in-training examinations were associated with ABR core examination failure. If validated more broadly, these cutoffs may serve as predictors of ABR core examination failure and may facilitate identification and remediation of at-risk residents.

Is the iPad suitable for image display at American Board of Radiology examinations?

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to determine the acceptability of the iPad 3 as a display option for American Board of Radiology (ABR) examinations. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A set of 20 cases for each of nine specialties examined by the ABR was prepared. Each comprised between one and seven images and case information and had been used in previous ABR Initial Certification examinations. Examining radiologists (n = 119) at the ABR oral Initial Certification examinations reviewed sets from one or more specialties on both a 2 MP LED monitor and on the iPad 3 and rated the visibility of the salient image features for each case. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed to compare ratings. In addition, a thematic analysis of participants' opinions was undertaken. RESULTS: When all specialties were pooled, the iPad 3 ratings were significantly higher than the monitor ratings (p = 0.0217). The breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and nuclear medicine specialties also returned significantly higher ratings for the visibility of relevant image features for the iPad 3. Monitor ratings were significantly higher for the vascular and interventional specialty, although no images were rated unacceptably poor on the iPad in this specialty. CONCLUSION: The relevant image features were rated more visible on the iPad 3 than on the monitors overall. The iPad 3 was well accepted by a large majority of examiners and can be considered adequate for image display for examination in most or all specialties.

The ABR 2021 Radiation Oncology Remote Examinations: Development, Administration, and Implications for the Future.

With the onset of the global coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in early 2020, it became apparent that routine administration of the ABR Qualifying and Certifying Exams would be disrupted. Initial intent for postponement was later altered to a recognition that replacement of the existing delivery methodologies was essential. Herein, the authors describe the conceptualization, development, administration, and future implications of the new remote examination delivery platforms.

Attending Reviews of Residents Correlate with ABR Qualifying (Core) Examination Failure.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Since the American Board of Radiology (ABR) instituted the new system of board certification, there has been much discussion as to the test's validity. We decided to evaluate if subjective evaluation of resident performance correlated with ABR Qualifying (Core) Examination performance at this single institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data regarding resident evaluation scores by attending physicians and passage of board examinations was gathered regarding residents who had taken the ABR Qualifying (Core) Examination from 2013 through 2019 for a total of 42 residents, eight of whom failed the ABR Qualifying (Core) Examination on their first attempt. A univariate analysis comparing scores with resident passage or failure of the ABR Qualifying (Core) Examination on the first attempt and analyses correcting for class year only and class year and number of evaluations was performed. RESULTS: The non-weighted average evaluation score of years 1, 2, and 3 was 80.24% for those who failed the ABR Qualifying (Core) Examination and 83.71 % for those who passed. On univariate analysis along with analyses correcting for class year only and class year along with number of evaluations, there was a statistically significant correlation with decreased evaluation scores averaged over the three years of residency and failure of the ABR Qualifying (Core) Examination (p = 0.0102, p = 0.003, and p = 0.0043). The statistical significance held for the average numerical score in each individual year of training in all analyses except for year 1 of the univariate analysis (p = 0.1264). CONCLUSION: At the studied institution, there was a statistically significant correlation between lower subjective faculty evaluation scores and failure of the ABR Qualifying (Core) Examination.

The American Board of Radiology's Alternate Pathway for Diagnostic Radiology: What the Programs and the Applicants Need to Know.

The American Board of Radiology (ABR) developed the international medical graduate alternate pathway to give foreign trained radiologists an alternate route to independent radiology practice without having to undergo radiology residency in the United States. After 4 years of fellowship/faculty experience in the same training institution, the foreign trained radiologist becomes eligible to sit for the radiology board examinations conducted by the ABR. As this pathway is not offered at every radiology training program, many training institutions are unfamiliar with the fundamentals of this pathway. At the same time, both the training institutions and the applying foreign-trained physicians face a plethora of confusing choices on the state and federal level. In this paper, we review the main factors which both the international medical graduate radiologists and training programs must consider before embarking on the diagnostic radiology ABR Alternate Pathway, namely, eligibility, visa options, state medical licensure requirements, their costs and implications for future employment opportunities.

Diagnostic Radiology Residency Program Director Workforce in the United States: A Descriptive Analysis.

PURPOSE: To investigate and describe the demographics, academic background, and scholarly activity of Diagnostic Radiology (DR) residency program directors in the United States. METHODS: A list of all DR residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and corresponding program directors (PD) was obtained from ACGME website. Information about each PD was obtained from publicly available sources including program websites, Healthgrades and Doximity. Demographic and academic data including age, sex, educational background, subspecialty, tenure, interval between residency completion and appointment as PD, terms served, additional degrees, academic rank, prior leadership positions and metrics of scholarly activity were recorded. Nonparametric statistics including Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were applied to compare differences between groups. Results are considered statistically significant at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 197 PDs were included in the study of which 139 (70.6%) were male. Average age of PDs was 47.56 years (SD 8.29, median 45, range 35-77). There was no significant difference in median age of male vs female PDs (45 vs 44.5, p = 0.655). Majority of PDs attended American medical schools (181/197, 91.9%), and 16/197 attended international medical schools. Nine PDs received DO degrees (9/197, 4.6%). Academic rank was available for 137 PDs, of which 4 (2.9%) were instructors, 63 (46.0%) were assistant professors, 47 (34.3%) were associate professors and 23 (16.8%) were professors. Fellowship information was available for 183 PDs, of which the most common subspecialties were neuroradiology (24.5%), musculoskeletal radiology (15.8%), abdominal radiology (10.3%), and interventional radiology (9.8%). Female PDs had a significantly higher median publications (13.5 vs 6.0, p = 0.003), median citations (133 vs 37, p = 0.19) and median h-index compared to male PDs (6 ± 3, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Radiology PDs are mostly males who graduated from US allopathic medical schools. Female PDs had significantly higher scholarly metrics compared to male PDs. Twenty three percent PDs were appointed in the last 1 year.

What's New in 10 Years? A Revised Cardiothoracic Curriculum for Diagnostic Radiology Residency with Goals and Objectives Related to General Competencies.

This is a cardiothoracic curriculum document for radiology residents meant to serve not only as a study guide for radiology residents but also as a teaching and curriculum reference for radiology educators and radiology residency program directors. This document represents a revision of a cardiothoracic radiology resident curriculum that was published 10 years ago in Academic Radiology. The sections that have been significantly revised, expanded, or added are (1) lung cancer screening, (2) lung cancer genomic profiling, (3) lung adenocarcinoma revised nomenclature, (4) lung biopsy technique, (5) nonvascular thoracic magnetic resonance, (6) updates to the idiopathic interstitial pneumonias, (7) cardiac computed tomography updates, (8) cardiac magnetic resonance updates, and (9) new and emerging techniques in cardiothoracic imaging. This curriculum was written and endorsed by the Education Committee of the Society of Thoracic Radiology. This curriculum operates in conjunction with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones project that serves as a framework for semiannual evaluation of resident physicians as they progress through their training in an ACGME-accredited residency or fellowship programs. This cardiothoracic curriculum document is meant to serve not only as a more detailed guide for radiology trainees, educators, and program directors but also complementary to and guided by the ACGME milestones.

ABR Core examination preparation: results of a survey of fourth-year radiology residents who took the 2013 examination.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: A survey was administered to fourth-year radiology residents after receiving their results from the first American Board of Radiology (ABR) Core examination in 2013. The purpose was to gather information regarding resources and study strategies to share with program directors and future resident classes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was distributed to examinees nationwide. The survey included free-response and multiple choice questions that covered examination results, perceived value of enumerated study resources, case-based and didactic teaching conferences, board reviews, study materials for noninterpretive skills, multidisciplinary conference attendance, and free-form comments. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-six of 1186 residents who took the Core examination responded to the survey. Some resources demonstrated a significant difference in perceived value between residents who passed the examination and residents who failed, including internal board reviews (1.10, P < .01), daily didactic conferences (1.51, P < .01), and daily case conferences (1.43, P < .01). Residents who passed reported that conferences and review sessions at their institutions were modified with multiple choice questions, audience response, and integration of clinical physics and patient safety topics compared to residents who failed. CONCLUSIONS: Radiology residents and residency programs have adapted their preparations for the ABR Core examination in a variety of ways. Certain practices and study tools, including daily conferences and internal board reviews, had greater perceived value by residents who passed the examination than by residents who failed. This survey provides insights that can be used to assess and modify current preparation strategies for the ABR Core examination.