Netanel S Berko1, Shlomit Goldberg-Stein2, Beverly A Thornhill2, Mordecai Koenigsberg2. 1. Department of Radiology, Montefiore Medical Center, 111 East 210th Street, Bronx, NY, 10467, USA. nsberko@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Montefiore Medical Center, 111 East 210th Street, Bronx, NY, 10467, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine current trends in postgraduate musculoskeletal ultrasound education across various medical specialties in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey regarding musculoskeletal ultrasound education was sent to all program directors for diagnostic radiology and physical medicine rehabilitation residency programs, as well as adult rheumatology and sports medicine fellowship programs in the United States. The survey, sent in July 2015, queried the presence of formal musculoskeletal ultrasound training, the components of such training and case volume for trainees. RESULTS: Response rates were 23, 25, 28 and 33% for physical medicine and rehabilitation, radiology, rheumatology and sports medicine programs, respectively. Among respondents, musculoskeletal ultrasound training was present in 65% of radiology programs, 88% of sports medicine programs, 90% of rheumatology programs, and 100% of physical medicine and rehabilitation programs. Most programs utilized didactic lectures, followed by hands-on scanning. The majority of programs without current training intend to implement such training within 5 years, although radiology programs reported the lowest likelihood of this happening. Most program directors believed that musculoskeletal ultrasound education is important for their trainees, and is of greater importance than it was 10 years ago. Case volume was lowest for radiology trainees and highest for sports medicine trainees. CONCLUSION: Among respondents, the majority of diagnostic radiology programs offer musculoskeletal ultrasound training. However, this experience is even more widespread in other medical specialties, and hands-on training and experience tend to be greater in other specialties than in radiology.
OBJECTIVE: To determine current trends in postgraduate musculoskeletal ultrasound education across various medical specialties in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey regarding musculoskeletal ultrasound education was sent to all program directors for diagnostic radiology and physical medicine rehabilitation residency programs, as well as adult rheumatology and sports medicine fellowship programs in the United States. The survey, sent in July 2015, queried the presence of formal musculoskeletal ultrasound training, the components of such training and case volume for trainees. RESULTS: Response rates were 23, 25, 28 and 33% for physical medicine and rehabilitation, radiology, rheumatology and sports medicine programs, respectively. Among respondents, musculoskeletal ultrasound training was present in 65% of radiology programs, 88% of sports medicine programs, 90% of rheumatology programs, and 100% of physical medicine and rehabilitation programs. Most programs utilized didactic lectures, followed by hands-on scanning. The majority of programs without current training intend to implement such training within 5 years, although radiology programs reported the lowest likelihood of this happening. Most program directors believed that musculoskeletal ultrasound education is important for their trainees, and is of greater importance than it was 10 years ago. Case volume was lowest for radiology trainees and highest for sports medicine trainees. CONCLUSION: Among respondents, the majority of diagnostic radiology programs offer musculoskeletal ultrasound training. However, this experience is even more widespread in other medical specialties, and hands-on training and experience tend to be greater in other specialties than in radiology.
Authors: Andrea S Klauser; Alberto Tagliafico; Gina M Allen; Natalie Boutry; Rob Campbell; Michel Court-Payen; Andrew Grainger; Henry Guerini; Eugene McNally; Philip J O'Connor; Simon Ostlere; Philippe Petroons; Monique Reijnierse; Luca Maria Sconfienza; Enzo Silvestri; David J Wilson; Carlo Martinoli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Matthias Knobe; Ralf Münker; Richard M Sellei; Malte Holschen; Saskia C Mooij; Bernhard Schmidt-Rohlfing; Fritz-Uwe Niethard; Hans-Christoph Pape Journal: Med Educ Date: 2009-12-21 Impact factor: 6.251
Authors: Jonathan T Finnoff; David Berkoff; Fred Brennan; John DiFiori; Mederic M Hall; Kimberly Harmon; Mark Lavallee; Sean Martin; Jay Smith; Mark Stovak Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Carrie N Klabunde; Gordon B Willis; Caroline C McLeod; Don A Dillman; Timothy P Johnson; Sarah M Greene; Martin L Brown Journal: Eval Health Prof Date: 2012-09-03 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Corrie M Yablon; Jim S Wu; Lori R Newman; Brian K Downie; Mary G Hochman; Ronald L Eisenberg Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jennifer Luz; Imran Siddiqui; Nitin B Jain; Minna J Kohler; Jayne Donovan; Paul Gerrard; Joanne Borg-Stein Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Y Martins; R I Lederman; C L Lowenstein; S Joffe; B A Neville; B T Hastings; G A Abel Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Netanel S Berko; Jenna N Le; Beverly A Thornhill; Dan Wang; Abdissa Negassa; E Stephen Amis; Mordecai Koenigsberg Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2018-04-28 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Altamash E Raja; Alexander Shustorovich; David M Robinson; Kathryn Alfonso; Ryan Meyer; Ryan T Roemmich; Christine Eng; Steve J Wisniewski; Philippines Cabahug Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Marcia A Bockbrader; Ryan D Thompson; David P Way; Sam C Colachis; Imran J Siddiqui; Jennifer Luz; Joanne Borg-Stein; Kevin OʼConnor; Minna J Kohler; David P Bahner Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.159