The current status of uptake of European Basic Safety Standard (2013/59/Euratom) requirements: results of a follow-up survey in European radiology departments

The recently implemented European Council Basic Safety Standards Directive (BSSD), 2013/59/Euratom lays down core radiation protection standards for European radiology departments, including a mandatory requirement for supporting processes of clinical audit. A repeat survey on behalf of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) was undertaken in February 2021, involving the ESR EuroSafe Imaging Star department network, to re-assess compliance with selected key BSSD requirements following an initial survey in 2018 where variable compliance was demonstrated. 61% (78/128) of eligible departments participated and overall the survey results revealed a mixed picture in terms of implementation of BSSD requirements when compared to the 2018 survey with both improvement and deterioration observed. This pattern was seen also in relation to supporting processes of regulatory audit and re-audit. Higher levels of “skipping” of responses were also observed in 2021. These findings were unexpected in light of the interventions in relation to audit (clinical and regulatory) and radiation protection undertaken by the ESR and other organisations in recent years, but can reasonably be explained by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, with consequent significant disruption of radiology services. The 2021 survey results do serve to highlight again the need for co-ordinated intervention involving relevant European bodies, organisations and governmental agencies to address the important issues raised by this survey. The European Commission clinical audit and radiation protection initiatives, QuADRANT, led by the ESR, and SAMIRA will act as important drivers for improvement in patient safety, experience and outcomes across Europe.

Dedicated COVID-19 Resource Center in Radiology Journals: Its Citation Metrics and Altmetrics Impact

Background: Since the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), several journals established dedicated resource center for all articles published on COVID-19. Our study compared the altmetric impact captured by articles published in journals having such COVID-19 resource center. Methods: We used Web of Science database to assess radiology journals publishing most common articles on COVID-19. We used Dimensions database to assess citations received and altmetric attention score for each article. For each article, we extracted number of citation received and altmetric attention score. To account for the the variation in strength and exposure between included journals, we adopted a normalization strategy and we used regression analysis in our statistical analysis. Results: A total of 494 articles included in the current assessment, including 334 (67.6%) articles published in journals with dedicated COVID-19 resource center including European radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, Radiology, and Journal of the American college of radiology, while European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Academic Radiology did not have COVID-19 resource center. Journals with COVID-19 resource center had a mean normalized altmetric attention score of 0.38 higher (95% CI 0.25 to 0.50; p< 0.001) and a mean normalized citation count of 6.73 higher (95% CI 3.99 to 9.48; p< 0.001) than those without COVID-19 resource center. Conclusion: Radiology journals that provided COVID-19 articles in a dedicated resource center within its homepage had higher attention and citation for their COVID-19 articles compared to journals that did not have such dedicated resource center.

Gender trends in authorships and publication impact in Academic Radiology—a 10-year perspective

Objectives To analyze the development of publication numbers of female authors in high-, medium-, and low-impact radiological journals. Methods In this bibliometric analysis, gender of the first (FA) and senior author (SA) was assigned to all original research articles and reviews, published in 10 high-, medium-, and low-impact radiological journals in 2007/8 and 2017/18. The adjusted event rate (AER) and adjusted odds ratio (AOR) were calculated using mixed logistic and multinomial logistic regression models to assess and compare female publications according to impact factor, journal, author position, and combination. Results The proportion of female FA and female SA in N = 6979 (2007/2008) and N = 7383 (2017/2018) articles increased to 29.1% and 16.1% in 2017/2018, respectively. While most female authorships were continuously observed in medium-impact journals, the strongest increase occurred for both female FA (AOR 2.0; p < .0001) and SA (AOR 2.1; p < .0001) in low-impact journals. Female SA published significantly more often in a low- (AOR 1.5) or medium- (AOR 1.8) than in a high-ranking journal. Among the high-ranking journals, female FA published most frequently in European Radiology (32.4%; 95% CI [29.3–35.8]; p < .0001), female SA in Investigative Radiology (15.9%; 95% CI [13.7–18.4]; p < .0001). Male same-sex authorships decreased (AOR 0.9), but remained at least twice as common as all-female or mixed authorships. Conclusion The increase in female authorship is reflected in all impact areas. Female FA and SA increased most in low-ranking journals but are most common in medium-ranking journals. Female SA remain rare, especially in high impact journals. Key Points • Compared to the proportion of female radiologists worldwide, female senior authors are underrepresented in all impact areas, in particular in high-impact journals. • Among the included high-ranking radiological journals, female first authors and senior authors were strongest represented in European Radiology and Investigative Radiology, while across all impact areas they mostly published in medium-ranking journals. • Female author combinations were more frequent in low- and medium- than in high-ranking journals, whereas male author combinations remained more common than female senior author collaborations in all impact areas.

Intravenous iodinated contrast is not associated with acute kidney injury in adult patients with nephrotic syndrome

<p>A critical appraisal and clinical application of Tao SM, Kong X, Schoepf UJ, et al. Acute kidney injury in patients with nephrotic syndrome undergoing contrast-enhanced CT for suspected venous thromboembolism: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study. <em>European Radiology</em>. 2018;28(4):1585-1593. doi: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5109-0">10.1007/s00330-017-5109-0</a></p>