Evaluation of Pediatric Radiology Fellowship Website Content in USA and Canada

PurposeProspective radiology fellows often rely on the internet to obtain valuable information regarding the application process as well as the unique qualities and aspects of different fellowship programs. The aim of this study was to analyze the content of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Pediatric Radiology Fellowship websites within the USA and Canadian Accredited Pediatric Radiology Fellowship program websites.MethodsAll active ACGME Pediatric Radiology fellowship websites as of October 2018 were evaluated using 26 criteria in the following domains: application process, recruitment, program structure, education, research, clinical care, and incentives. Fellowships without websites were excluded from the study. Canadian programs were compiled from a list obtained as of October 2018 from the Canadian Association of Radiologists fellowship directory. Each fellowship program was evaluated using the same 26 criteria as the US programs.Results45 active ACGME Pediatric Radiology fellowship programs and 9 Canadian programs were identified. 43 of the US fellowships (96%), and 8 of the Canadian fellowships (89%) had dedicated fellowship websites available for analysis. For US data, websites on average contained 8 out of the 26 data points (31%). Whereas, in Canada, websites on average contained 11 out of the 26 data points (41%).ConclusionMost fellowship websites demonstrate several information deficiencies. This presents an actionable opportunity for individual programs to better inform trainees, promote Pediatric Radiology, and attract the highest quality applicants.     

Advertise Right by Addressing the Concerns: An Evaluation of Women's/Breast Imaging Radiology Fellowship Website Content for Prospective Fellows

PurposeFellowship is an important part of postgraduate medical training as it facilitates advanced training in a subspecialty of interest. Internet is the most readily available and frequently used tool for acquiring information about the fellowship programs by residents worldwide. The aim of this study was to analyze the content of the websites of American and Canadian breast/women's imaging fellowship programs.MethodsThe content of active Canadian and American breast/women's imaging fellowship websites was collected and analyzed in August 2019 using 27 different criteria in the categories of application process, recruitment, education, research, clinical work, and incentives. The fellowship program without a webpage were excluded from the study.ResultsOut of 76 active breast/women's imaging Radiology fellowship programs in the US and Canada, 75 had dedicated fellowship websites available for analysis. One program was excluded due to lack of a dedicated website. On average, websites showcased 11 of the 27 criteria (40.0%). The category with the least prevalent information was incentives especially career placement after completion of the fellowship (1/75, 1.3%). Majority of the programs around 80.0% (60/75) had adequate information about the application process and requirements.The mean number of schools satisfying the different groups of criteria differed (P< 0.01); more schools satisfied the application criteria (60.5/75; 79.6% ± 20.3%) than the incentives (12.8/75; 16.8% ± 8.2%) and recruitment (24.5/75; 32.2% ± 29.7%) criteria.ConclusionMajority of the breast and women's imaging fellowship websites lack important information. Providing comprehensive online information about the program and application process may help the applicants to choose the best suited program for their academic needs and career progression.     

An Evaluation of the Content of Canadian Radiology Fellowship Websites

PurposeProspective radiology fellows utilize the internet to apply for radiology fellowship programs. The aim of this study was to analyze the online content of Canadian radiology fellowship websites.MethodsThe content of all active Canadian radiology fellowship websites were evaluated using 30 criteria in the following domains: application, recruitment, education and research, clinical work and benefits. Fellowships without websites were excluded from the study. The prevalence of assessed elements was compared to geography and Canadian medical school ranking.ResultsWe identified 107 active Canadian radiology fellowship programmes, of which 102 university fellowships (95.3%) had dedicated fellowship websites available for analysis. Of these 102 programs, the median score was 13/30 (43.0%). Websites of fellowship programs affiliated with top ranked medical schools contained more of the assessed criteria than middle and lower ranked schools (17.0 vs 13.0 vs 9.0, p < 0.0001)). Geographical difference was identified across Canada with Atlantic and Central Canada fellowship programs having significantly more criteria than Western programs (15.5 vs 16.0 vs 10.0, p < 0.001).ConclusionsMost Canadian radiology fellowship websites are devoid of content pertinent to prospective radiology fellows. Addressing deficiencies in online content may assist programs to inform and recruit residents into radiology fellowship programs.     

Canadian and American Emergency Radiology Fellowship Websites: An Evaluation of Content

PurposeThe internet is commonly employed by Radiology trainees to investigate and learn about potential fellowship programs. As a new and emerging subspecialty, Emergency Radiology requires strong internet presence and training program website content. This is vital to ensure good exposure of the fellowship programs to inform medical students, radiology trainees, and program directors, highlight unique aspects of a fellowship and raise awareness of the discipline at large.MethodsTo assess the standard and depth of information available online, Canadian and American Radiology fellowship websites were evaluated for content. Thirty-six criteria related to application process and recruitment, departmental structure, incentives, education, and research and clinical training were evaluated for presence or absence.ResultsSixteen Emergency Radiology fellowship program websites were assessed from the United States and Canada for 36 criteria across 5 individual areas; application process and recruitment, departmental structure, incentives, education and research, and clinical training. Overall there was an absence of information found across all 5 areas. In particular areas for improvement were identified in education and research, and incentives both with median values of 12.5% of criteria present.ConclusionMost Emergency Radiology fellowship program websites demonstrate several information deficiencies. This relative lack of comprehensive information represents an actionable opportunity for individual programs and the field to better educate trainees, program directors and the public about the unique training of Emergency Radiologists.     

Assessment of the neuroradiology fellowship match: year 3

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: When the fellowship match for trainees entering neuroradiology programs was first proposed in 2001, the program directors in neuroradiology agreed to a 3-year trial utilizing the National Residency Match Program (NRMP) for selecting fellows. A decision as to whether to continue with the neuroradiology fellowship match was to be assessed at the 3-year mark in 2004. METHODS: A Web survey designed through the offices of the ASNR was distributed to neuroradiology fellowship program directors after the results of the most recent fellowship match were tabulated in June 2003. The questionnaire included items about the current sentiment about the fellowship selection process. RESULTS: Most (52 of 61 = 85%) neuroradiology program directors favored continuing the match system for selecting fellows. Most believed that the match 1) had little impact on their success in recruiting fellows (43 of 62 = 69%), 2) was fairly administered (100%), and 3) was appropriately timed from February to June in the third year of residency (56 of 65 = 86%). The number of candidates entering the neuroradiology match increased from 71 in 2001 to 124 in 2003. CONCLUSION: Support for continuing a match system for selecting fellows remains high (85%) among neuroradiology program directors. The system is considered fair and does not harm many programs. The recruitment of fellows to neuroradiology via the match has increased over the 3 years of its existence.     

Non-interventional Radiology Fellowship Programs: What Is Out There?

ObjectiveTo determine the spectrum of non-interventional radiology fellowship programs in institutions that offer both a radiology residency program and one or more non-interventional radiology fellowship programs.MethodsInstitutions offering both radiology residency and non-interventional radiology fellowship programs were identified using publicly available websites. The non-interventional radiology fellowship programs were categorized into “traditional” (neuroradiology, breast imaging, abdominal imaging, musculoskeletal imaging, thoracic imaging, pediatric radiology, and nuclear medicine) and “nontraditional” fellowship programs. The nontraditional programs were stratified into four categories: a) Combinations of traditional fellowships; b) Focused nontraditional fellowships; c) Combinations of traditional and focused nontraditional fellowships (excluding traditional-traditional combinations); and d) Mandatory two-year fellowships. The distributions of the different types of traditional and nontraditional fellowship programs were evaluated.Results555 fellowship programs were identified in 113 institutions that offered both radiology residency and non-interventional radiology fellowship programs. 73.33% (407/555) of the programs were traditional fellowships, and 26.66% (148/555) were nontraditional fellowships. The 148 nontraditional fellowship programs were comprised of 41 different types of programs, 23 types of which were unique to and offered exclusively at specific institutions. 38.08% of the traditional fellowship programs were Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited, while only 16.21% (24/148) of the nontraditional fellowship programs were ACGME-accredited.ConclusionsThe nontraditional non-interventional radiology fellowship programs are formed by a heterogeneous group of programs, some of which are offered exclusively at a single institution. Awareness of the types of existing programs would help radiology residents in making a more informed decision regarding their fellowship training.     

Fellowship Candidate Factors Considered by Program Directors

ObjectiveThe neuroradiology fellowship match has been in existence for about 20 years. However, the elements by which neuroradiology fellowship program directors evaluate candidates have not been clearly elucidated. We sought to identify the factors that program directors use to rank neuroradiology fellowship applicants.MethodsAn anonymous Qualtrics online five-question survey about educational credentials, personal traits, extracurricular activities, and demographic characteristics was sent to 72 neuroradiology program directors in April 2019. Each question required ranking of 10 factors based on different characteristics of fellowship candidates. Items included gender, nationality, US Medical Licensing Examination scores, internal applicants, work and research experience, recommendation letters, residency program, medical school attended, and visa status. Program directors had the ability to list any new characteristics that were not included in the survey.ResultsIn all, 68 of 72 (94.4%) neuroradiology programs responded to the survey. The most important criteria by which candidates were assessed were (1) residency program attended for educational credential, (2) personality as assessed by faculty at interviews for candidate personal traits, (3) research performed for candidate’s extracurricular activities, and (4) likelihood of coming to or previous experience in the fellowship geographic area. Neuroradiology program directors independently stressed residency program attended, personality assessed during the interview by faculty, internal candidate status, letters of recommendation, and research activities as their top five criteria in ranking the candidates.ConclusionMultiple factors are weighed by neuroradiology fellowship program directors in selecting fellows, but recent experiences in residency, research, and faculty interactions are prioritized. Internal candidates have an advantage for remaining as fellows within their residency programs.     

Differences in Neuroradiology Training Programs around the World

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:No previous study compares neuroradiology training programs and teaching schedules across the globe, to our knowledge. This study was conducted to better understand international program requisites.MATERIALS AND METHODS:Data from 43 countries were collected by an e-mail-based questionnaire (response rate, 84.0%). Radiologists across the world were surveyed regarding the neuroradiology training schemes in their institutions. Answers were verified by officers of the national neuroradiology societies.RESULTS:While many countries do not provide fellowship training in neuroradiology (n = 16), others have formal postresidency curricula (n = 27). Many programs have few fellows and didactic sessions, but the 1- or 2-year duration of fellowship training is relatively consistent (n = 23/27, 85%).CONCLUSIONS:There is a wide variety of fellowship offerings, lessons provided, and ratios of teachers to learners in neuroradiology training programs globally.

The United States considers itself a leader in medical education and training among nations.¹ Generally speaking, American medical school, residency, and fellowship programs are considered globally as being well-structured, highly competitive, and outstanding in the quality of education and instruction. As of the 2013–2014 academic year, 185 radiology residency programs and 85 neuroradiology (NR) fellowship programs in the United States are voluntarily supervised by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). This private, nonprofit organization sets educational standards and periodically reviews their implementation within the respective graduate medical education programs.² In addition, completion of programs accredited by the ACGME is a prerequisite to becoming board-certified in diagnostic radiology and subspecialty certified in neuroradiology. Examinations are offered by the American Board of Radiology annually through the American Board of Medical Specialties. It oversees specialty and subspecialty certification in radiology and 23 other medical specialties in the United States.The educational path for an aspiring American neuroradiologist typically begins by matching in a first-postgraduate-year prerequisite clinical year (internship year) and an ACGME-accredited postgraduate year 2- to 5-year diagnostic radiology residency program.³ The first 3 years of residency focus on diagnostic radiology (postgraduate years 2–4) and include 9 core rotations in abdominal radiology, breast imaging, cardiothoracic radiology, musculoskeletal radiology, neuroradiology, nuclear radiology, pediatric radiology, sonography, and vascular and interventional radiology. In postgraduate year 5, residents may participate in subspecialty rotations of their choice.⁴ The trainees'' diagnostic experience in the different imaging modalities is assessed through a case/procedure log system, which is annually reviewed by the faculty of the program and the ACGME.⁵After finishing residency, graduating radiologists have the opportunity to start additional fellowship training within their discipline of choice if they desire subspecialty expertise.⁶ Contributing factors that promote the implementation of fellowship programs in radiology are the rapid development of new imaging techniques, the need for appropriate interpretation skills and expertise to compete in the job market, and the trend toward endovascular and percutaneous therapies.¹The first NR fellowship positions were offered in Stockholm and London in the 1950s and approximately 10 years later in New York (1960).⁷ Regarding neuroradiology, 2 fellowships are offered in the United States currently: diagnostic neuroradiology (DNR) and interventional neuroradiology (INR), with the latter, by ACGME regulations, requiring a previous DNR year. However, very few of the offered neurointerventional programs are currently ACGME-accredited, so this requirement is often not completed.Because there is a trend toward greater subspecialization in radiology globally, we conducted a survey to investigate differences in radiology training programs across the world with regard to the general curriculum, focusing on neuroradiology fellowships in particular. Therefore, departments in countries on all continents were asked to complete a standardized questionnaire about their training programs. Hence, differences in international educational structures could be revealed.     

United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and 2 Scores Predict Neuroradiology Fellowship Success

PurposeMany neuroradiology programs use United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores to assess fellowship candidates. The authors hypothesized that because they are taken several years before fellowship, USMLE scores would correlate poorly with success in fellowship training as measured by faculty evaluations.MethodsUSMLE scores from 10 years of neuroradiology fellows (n = 73) were compared with their cumulative mean E*Value scores from their fellowship years and their best-to-worst rankings within their fellowship years. If available, subspecialty certification scores were also factored as an outcome. Linear correlation and regression analyses were performed adjusting for gender, medical school site, and practice setting after fellowship.ResultsUSMLE Step 1, 2, and 3 scores were available for 69, 64, and 56 fellows, respectively. Fellowship E*Value scores and rankings showed statistically significant (P < .05) correlations with all USMLE scores, but most strongly for Step 1 scores and E*Value grade (r = 0.443) and rank (r = 0.370). The mean USMLE Step 1 score of the top-ranked fellows (234.5) was significantly higher than that of the bottom-ranked fellows (217.7). The correlations of E*Value score and rank with USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores remained after adjusting for gender and American versus foreign medical school, but the medical school site attended also was an independent predictor of fellowship evaluations. Subspecialty certification scores did not show correlations but were underpowered (n = 28).ConclusionsUSMLE Step 1 and 2 scores correlated significantly with success in neuroradiology fellowship, measured by faculty assessments of the six core competencies. Using the scores as a means of assessing candidates for positions is justified.     

Training by the Numbers: A Survey-Based Analysis of the Number of Positions Available in New Interventional Radiology Training Pathways

ObjectiveAs of June 30, 2020, interventional radiology (IR) fellowships will cease to exist and will be replaced by the integrated IR, independent IR, and early specialization in IR (ESIR) pathways. The objective of this study is to determine the alignment in the number of available positions between the ESIR and independent IR pathways.MethodsAn analysis was performed of 150 residency programs offering at least 1 of the 3 IR training pathways. Information regarding the most up-to-date list for integrated IR, independent IR, ESIR, and IR fellowship programs were obtained from the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR), the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS), and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) websites. A 4-question survey was distributed to residency program directors and residency program coordinators to confirm the number of positions offered in each of the training pathways at their institution.ResultsNinety-nine of 113 ESIR programs (87.6% response rate) reported a total of 176 approved ESIR positions. One hundred and eleven fellowship programs in the United States currently offer a total of 331 positions. Seventy-seven integrated IR programs and 48 independent IR programs offer 150 and 133 positions, respectively, for a total of 283 advanced IR training positions.DiscussionA substantial discrepancy currently exists with IR training pathways, as the number of available ESIR positions far outnumbers the available independent IR pathway positions. There is a continuing need for communication with residency programs and frequent reevaluation of the various IR training pathways to maintain the most accurate database.     

American Society of Neuroradiology research survey 2001

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Research is a critical component of the mission of academic radiology, and success in research is necessary for the future of neuroradiology. Thus, the authors set out to establish a baseline of research activities of American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR) members. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors surveyed 100 fellowship program directors. The survey was Web based, with recruitment from the ASNR Fellowship Database survey site and with e-mail and fax solicitations to the Web site. Questions focused on neuroradiologist and neuroradiology fellow involvement in research. RESULTS: Forty-eight of the 100 program directors (48%) responded. Several key findings emerged: (a) About one-third of fellowship programs require all fellows to do some research, with most fellows receiving less than 1 day per week of academic time; (b) just over half of the programs expect fellows to publish a paper; (c) about two-thirds of academic neuroradiologists get at least 1 academic day per week; (d) most academic neuroradiologists perform research, but most of this research is unfunded; and (e) about nine of 10 academic sections have at least one neuroradiologist with some extramural funding. CONCLUSION: The relative lack of extramural funding among academic neuroradiologists is a reality that is probably multifactorial; however, there may be a direct relationship between amount of academic time free from clinical duties and successful competition for funding. The time (and, thus, financial) support of research-oriented fellows and faculty should be increased.     

Fellowship and practice trends in neuroradiology training programs in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Neuroradiology has become an increasingly diverse and subspecialized discipline. We evaluated the current status and trends affecting fellowship programs and the practice of clinical neuroradiology at academic medical centers, with emphasis on invasive procedures. METHODS: All 85 program directors at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-approved fellowships in neuroradiology were sent a detailed questionnaire pertaining to various demographic aspects of their program and the performance of certain radiologic examinations of the brain and spine. RESULTS: Sixty-seven programs (79%) responded. As many as 50% of programs are 1 year in length. Twenty-five percent of 2-year fellows leave their program after 1 year of training. During the past 5 years, 36% of programs have decreased in size and 73% reported a decline in the number of applicants. The majority (55%) of programs have had applicants renege on their commitment to begin a fellowship. Twenty percent of 2-year programs do not offer training in endovascular interventional procedures. Neurosurgeons perform endovascular interventional procedures at 18% of centers. There is an 18-fold variation in the volume of neuroangiographic procedures performed each year and a 150-fold variation in the volume of myelographic procedures performed. In 29% of programs, neuroradiologists are nonparticipants in nonvascular interventional spinal procedures; in 40%, they share these procedures with musculoskeletal radiologists/nonradiologists. CONCLUSION: Interest in fellowship programs in neuroradiology is declining. An applicant's commitment to either begin a fellowship or complete 2 years of training cannot be regarded with assurance, and there is a lack of uniformity in many areas of the training experience, particularly in invasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.     

Emergency radiology fellowship training in the USA: a web-based survey of academic programs

Interest in emergency radiology as a distinct subspecialty within radiology continues to rise in the USA and globally. While acute care imaging has been performed since the earliest days of the specialty, fellowship training in emergency radiology is a relatively new phenomenon. The purpose of this study was to examine the current status of emergency radiology training in the USA, using data derived from the official websites of US residency training programs. The most current list of radiology residency programs participating in the 2017 match was obtained from the official Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) website. The total number of emergency radiology fellowships was recorded after visiting available websites of each academic radiology program. The total number of subspecialty fellowships offered by each academic radiology program was also recorded. There were 12 confirmed emergency radiology fellowships offered in the USA for a combined total of 22 fellowship positions. Eleven programs were 1 year in duration, with one program offering a one- or two-year option. One hundred eight of the 174 (approximately 62 %) surveyed academic radiology programs offered at least one subspecialty fellowship. Emergency radiology fellowships are on the rise, paralleling the growth of emergency radiology as a distinct subspecialty within radiology.     

An Assessment of Radiology Residency Program Websites

PurposeWhen prospective radiology residents decide where to apply to residency, many will use the Internet as a resource to garner information. Therefore, it is important for residency programs to produce and maintain an informative and comprehensive website. Here, we review 179 radiology residency program websites for 19 criteria including various aspects related to the residency application process, benefits, didactics, research, clinical training, and faculty leadership.MethodsWe evaluated 179 radiology residency program websites for the inclusion of 19 different criteria. Criteria for information not available directly on the website and links with no information were considered not present.ResultsOnly 12 of the 179 (6.7%) program websites had at least 80% of the 19 criteria. In addition, 41 programs (23%) had less than 50% of the criteria listed on their websites. Websites ranged from having 16% of the criteria to as much as 95%.ConclusionAlthough previous studies have shown that prospective radiology resident applicants are influenced by intangibles like current resident satisfaction and academic reputation, they have also shown that applicants are influenced by the educational curriculum, clinical training, program resources, research opportunities, and quality of faculty. Therefore, it is imperative to provide online resources for prospective candidates in an attempt for residency programs to remain competitive in recruiting high-quality US medical student graduates. These findings suggest there is room for improving the comprehensiveness of information provided on radiology residency program websites.     

Assessment of US Radiology Residency Program Websites in the COVID-19 Era

ObjectiveTo provide an updated evaluation of radiology residency program websites in light of virtual interviewing during the COVID-19 pandemic and encourage programs to improve the quality of their online website presence.MethodsWe evaluated the websites of 197 US radiology residency programs between November and December 2021 for the presence or absence of 30 metrics. The metrics chosen are those considered important by applicants when choosing a program and have been used in other similar papers.ResultsOf the 197 programs, 192 (97.5%) had working websites. The average radiology residency website had 16 of 30 (54%) metrics listed on their websites. Five programs did not have accessible websites and were not included in the analysis. The most comprehensive website had 29 of 30 (97%) of metrics listed and the least comprehensive website had 2 of 30 (7%). There is a statistically significant difference in website comprehensiveness between top 20 and non–top 20 radiology program websites.ConclusionAlthough radiology residency program websites have generally become more comprehensive over time, there is still room for improvement, especially in times of virtual interviews when residency applicants are becoming more and more reliant on program websites to gain essential information about a program. Some key areas to include are diversity and inclusion initiatives, resident wellness, applicant information, program benefits, and showcase of people in the program.     

Am I Ready to Be an Independent Neuroradiologist? Objective Trends in Neuroradiology Fellows' Performance during the Fellowship Year

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Aside from basic Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education guidelines, few metrics are in place to monitor fellows'' progress. The purpose of this study was to determine objective trends in neuroradiology fellowship training on-call performance during an academic year.MATERIALS AND METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed the number of cross-sectional neuroimaging studies dictated with complete reports by neuroradiology fellows during independent call. Monthly trends in total call cases, report turnaround times, relationships between volume and report turnaround times, and words addended to preliminary reports by attending neuroradiologists were evaluated with regression models. Monthly variation in frequencies of call-discrepancy macros were assessed via χ² tests. Changes in frequencies of specific macro use between fellowship semesters were assessed via serial 2-sample tests of proportions.RESULTS:From 2012 to 2017, for 29 fellows, monthly median report turnaround times significantly decreased during the academic year: July (first month) = 79 minutes (95% CI, 71–86 minutes) and June (12th month) = 55 minutes (95% CI, 52–60 minutes; P value = .023). Monthly report turnaround times were inversely correlated with total volumes for CT (r = –0.70, F = 9.639, P value = .011) but not MR imaging. Words addended to preliminary reports, a surrogate measurement of report clarity, slightly improved and discrepancy rates decreased during the last 6 months of fellowship. A nadir for report turnaround times, discrepancy errors, and words addended to reports was seen in December and January.CONCLUSIONS:Progress through fellowship correlates with a decline in report turnaround times and discrepancy rates for cross-sectional neuroimaging call studies and slight improvement in indirect quantitative measurement of report clarity. These metrics can be tracked throughout the academic year, and the midyear would be a logical time point for programs to assess objective progress of fellows and address any deficiencies.

A fellow''s progress in an academic year is primarily assessed using qualitative, thus subjective, criteria, including achievement of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–prescribed milestones and faculty evaluations. While the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education provides requirements for total yearly cases read¹ and individual programs may have internal metrics for fellows'' progress, there are no concrete external objective measurements for documenting fellows'' progress within the academic year. Often, fellows are unsure whether their efficiency in generating reports, report turnaround times (RTATs) for on-call examinations, or quality of on-call reports is satisfactory.The total number of studies dictated by the fellow and the RTATs of on-call studies may be reviewed by the attendings and program director with the fellows, but more meaningful interpretation of these numbers is lacking because there are no comparison benchmarks or quantitative checkpoints within the fellowship year. Knowledge of these factors is critical in a fellowship program so that program directors and fellows are jointly aware of progress throughout the year and remediation or additional focused training can be implemented, as necessary. More data on neuroradiology fellowship training are especially needed because a survey in 2016 demonstrated that 25% of practicing neuroradiologists in the United States believe that fellows'' abilities have declined.² Prior studies have analyzed various other factors related to radiology residency training, including total cases read, turnaround time, and on-call accuracy,^3,4 but to our knowledge, no studies have analyzed the quantitative trends in fellowship training during an academic year.We hypothesized that within an academic year, the RTAT for on-call studies dictated by fellows will decrease (ie, improve). Meanwhile, the discrepancy rates will decrease, and clarity of reports will improve. We also hypothesized that participating in independent call will have residual short-term effects on increasing clinical productivity during a subsequent regular work week.     

Analysis of Demographic and Educational Backgrounds of Interventional Neuroradiology Fellowship Program Director Workforce in North America

PurposeTo analyse the demographics, academic background, and scholarly activity of Interventional Neuroradiology (INR)/Endovascular Surgical Neuroradiology (ESN) program directors (PDs) in the United States (US) and Canada.MethodsA list of all INR/ESN fellowships was obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the Committee on Advanced Subspecialty Training, maintained by Society of Neurological Surgeons, the NeuroInterventional Training list website maintained by the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery, and the Neurosurgical Fellowship Training Program Directory website maintained by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. Online search was performed to identify PDs for these programs. Publicly available sources used to gather information about each PD included the program websites, the HealthGrades and Doximity websites, and Elsevier's Scopus database. Demographic and educational data including age, gender, educational background, subspecialty, appointment age, interval between residency completion and appointment as PD, additional degrees, academic rank, prior leadership positions, and metrics of scholarly activity were recorded. One-way analysis of variance was used to determine differences between the means of different groups.ResultsA total of 78 PDs from 72 programs were included, of which 72 (92.3%) were male with the mean age of 49.59 years (SD 7.25). Specialty division of PDs was neurosurgery (40, 51.3%), radiology (26, 33.3%), and neurology (10, 12.8%), whereas 2 PDs were dual board-certified in neurology and radiology. Twenty-five (32.1%) PDs attended an international medical school. All PDs received an MD degree or foreign equivalent, with no PD holding a DO degree. Eleven PDs received a PhD degree and 16 PDs received fellowship from a professional medical society. The mean ± SD publications, citations, and h-indexes of PDs were 111.32 ± 121.18, 2985.0 ± 1459.0 and 22.27 ± 15.45, respectively. There was no statistical difference in scholarly activity among PDs when stratified on the basis of specialty, gender, and US region.ConclusionINR/ESN PDs are predominantly male, with a majority from neurosurgery background, and thirty percent having graduated from international medical schools.     

Prospects of a Fellowship Match for Abdominal Imaging: A National Survey by the Society of Abdominal Radiology

PurposeAfter the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiology Departments timeline and guidelines were released for the 2021 through 2022 fellowship application cycle, the Society of Abdominal Radiology conducted a survey of residents, fellows, and abdominal imaging fellowship program directors (PDs) to assess stakeholders’ perceptions of changes in the fellowship application process.MethodsEligible study participants included fellowship PDs of all US abdominal imaging programs and Society of Abdominal Radiology members-in-training. A questionnaire was developed by content and survey experts, pilot-tested, and administered from August to October 2019.ResultsSurvey response rates were 51.4% among PDs (54 of 103) and 24.2% among trainees (67 of 279), with an overall response rate of 31.8%. Attitudes regarding the abdominal imaging fellowship application process were overall similar between PDs and trainees, including expressed support for a common application. Although trainees and PDs agreed that the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiology Departments 2021 through 2022 cycle timeline is preferable to the prior unstructured system, only 42.4% of PDs and 40.7% of trainees supported moving to a formal match, with a significant number of respondents undecided. Both PDs and trainees favored timing fellowship interviews during the fall of the third year of residency (R3 year), with a 1- to 2-month buffer between the start of interviews and offers.ConclusionsPDs and trainees demonstrate similar attitudes in support of the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiology Departments 2021 through 2022 cycle timeline and a common abdominal imaging fellowship application. Shifting the interview season from winter to fall of R3 year could be considered to meet the preferences of PDs and trainees alike. Moving to a formal match remains controversial.     

Trends in research productivity of residents applying for orthopedic sports medicine fellowship

Objectives: Though there are no research requirements to match into an orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship, many applicants are productive in research endeavors during residency. We hypothesize that the number of publications by Orthopaedic sports medicine applicants are increasing.

Methods: A list of current and recent sports medicine fellows was compiled from publicly accessible information on sports medicine fellowship websites. Articles published while the fellow was a resident were identified via publicly available search engines. The following information was collected: year of fellowship and years of residency, fellowship program, geographic location of fellowship program, total number of publications (noting specifically first and last author publications), number of publications in high impact orthopaedic journals (AJSM, JBJS Am, JSES, or Arthroscopy).

Results: Overall, 189 fellowship-matched surgeons from 2010 – 2017 were identified. There were 746 publications (average of 3.95 per fellow), with 218 (29.2%) in high impact orthopaedic journals. Surgeons who completed their fellowship during the 2016–17 academic year, published on average 5.42 publications per fellow. Fellowship applicants in the Northeast region had the highest number of total publications (359 publications, 48.1% of all publications; 6.41 publications per fellow). Applicants were listed most often as middle authors (462 publications, 61.9%).

Conclusions: There has been an overall increase in the number of publications among sports medicine fellowship applicants in the last several academic years. Fellowship programs in the northeast United States tended to match applicants with a higher number of publications.