↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of Radiology Training During Radiation Oncology Residency

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cancer Education, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
3 Mendeley
Title
Assessment of Radiology Training During Radiation Oncology Residency
Published in
Journal of Cancer Education, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13187-018-1357-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shanna A. Matalon, Stephanie A. Howard, Matthew J. Abrams

Abstract

A strong foundation in diagnostic imaging is essential to the practice of radiation oncology. This study evaluated radiology training in radiation oncology residency. An online survey was distributed to current radiation oncology residents in the USA by e-mail in 2017. Responses were summarized using frequency and percentages and compared with chi-square test and Spearman's rank correlation when appropriate. One hundred five residents completed the survey. Although most residents felt that a strong knowledge base in diagnostic radiology was moderately or extremely important (87%, n = 90/104), the majority were only somewhat confident in their radiology skills (61%, n = 63/104) and were only somewhat, minimally, or not at all satisfied with their training (79%, n = 81/103). Although there was an association between increasing post-graduate training and confidence level (p = 0.01062, ρ = 0.24959), the majority of graduating residents feel only somewhat confident in radiology skills (63%, n = 12/19). Residents were most commonly exposed to radiology via multidisciplinary conferences (96%, n = 100/104), though only 15% (n = 16/104) of residents ranked these as the most beneficial component of their radiology training and 13% (n = 13/101) of residents felt these were the least beneficial. Most residents (60%, n = 63/105) believe there is a need for dedicated radiology training during residency, preferring monthly formal didactics (68%, n = 71/105) co-taught by a radiologist and radiation oncologist (58%, n = 61/105). Radiation oncology residents feel their radiology training is suboptimal, suggesting a need for more guidance and standardization of radiology curriculum. A preferred option may be monthly didactics co-taught by radiologists and radiation oncologists; however, future studies should assess the effectiveness of this model.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 2 67%
Student > Master 1 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 67%
Social Sciences 1 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 September 2019.
All research outputs
#2,369,987
of 13,516,287 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Education
#68
of 597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,296
of 269,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Education
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,516,287 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 597 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,851 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.