Literature DB >> 17242214

The state of teleradiology in 2003 and changes since 1999.

Todd L Ebbert1, Cristian Meghea, Santiago Iturbe, Howard P Forman, Mythreyi Bhargavan, Jonathan H Sunshine.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study is to describe in detail the use of teleradiology in 2003 and to report on changes since 1999 in this rapidly evolving field.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyze non-individually identified data from the American College of Radiology's 2003 Survey of Radiologists, a stratified random sample mail survey that achieved a response rate of 63%, and data from the American College of Radiology's 1999 Survey of Practices. Responses were weighted to represent the distribution of individual radiologists and radiology practices nationwide. We present descriptive statistics and multivariable regression analysis results on the prevalence and uses of teleradiology in 2003 and comparisons with 1999.
RESULTS: Overall, 67% of all radiology practices in the United States, which included 78% of all U.S. radiologists, reported using teleradiology. A significant increase (p < 0.05) was seen in the prevalence of teleradiology or PACS, from 58% of practices in 1999 to 73% in 2003. Regression results indicate that, other practice characteristics being equal, in 2003, primarily academic practices were less likely to use teleradiology than private radiology practices, and medium-sized practices (5-14 radiologists) were more likely to have teleradiology than larger ones. In practices using teleradiology, home was the most frequent receiving site in both 1999 (81%) and 2003 (75%), the percentages being not significantly different.
CONCLUSION: Already a fixture of radiology practice in 1999, teleradiology increased in prevalence substantially by 2003. The primary use of teleradiology, transmission of images to home, did not change, suggesting that easing the burden of call remains the main use of teleradiology.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17242214     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.06.1310

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  7 in total

1.  Systematic survey of discrepancy rates in an international teleradiology service.

Authors:  Anjali Agrawal; Anurag Agrawal; Meenakshi Pandit; Arjun Kalyanpur
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2010-08-25

2.  Anatomy of an Extensible Open Source PACS.

Authors:  Frederico Valente; Luís A Bastião Silva; Tiago Marques Godinho; Carlos Costa
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  [Teleradiological report turnaround times: An internal efficiency and quality control analysis].

Authors:  T Seithe; M de Bucourt; T Seithe; R Busse; M Rief; R Doyscher; L Albrecht; H Rathke; M Jonczyk; R Poschmann; H Tepe; B Hamm
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 0.635

4.  Do long radiology workdays affect nodule detection in dynamic CT interpretation?

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; Kevin S Berbaum; Robert T Caldwell; Kevin M Schartz; Mark T Madsen; David J Kramer
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 5.532

5.  Long radiology workdays reduce detection and accommodation accuracy.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; Kevin S Berbaum; Robert T Caldwell; Kevin M Schartz; John Kim
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 5.532

6.  Adoption of telemedicine: from pilot stage to routine delivery.

Authors:  Paolo Zanaboni; Richard Wootton
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 2.796

7.  Geographic Distribution of Radiologists and Utilization of Teleradiology in Japan: A Longitudinal Analysis Based on National Census Data.

Authors:  Masatoshi Matsumoto; Soichi Koike; Saori Kashima; Kazuo Awai
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-30       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.