| Literature DB >> 32317834 |
Nguyen Minh Duc1,2,3, Huynh Quang Huy2,4, Bilgin Keserci5,6, Pham Minh Thong7.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Each country has its system of the training program, but to be concordant with the world in the radiology field, the process needs to have common points or common criteria. On maintaining the integrity of intersociety collaboration in the field of radiology, it is necessary to understand each country's training program for each specialty. AIM: This retrospective study aims to compare the postgraduate thesis characteristics from various sources in the field of radiology.Entities:
Keywords: Postgraduate thesis characteristics; Vietnam; radiology
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32317834 PMCID: PMC7164733 DOI: 10.5455/medarh.2020.74.42-46
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Arch ISSN: 0350-199X
Comparison of basic characteristics among four thesis types. § Statistically significant
| Overall | PhD (1) | Specialist II (2) | Master (3) | Residency (4) | p | Post hoc§ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 36.50 | 43.50 | 46.00 | 29.00 | 27.00 | < 0.001§ | p1-3, p1-4 p2-3, p2-4 |
| Gender | 0.025§ | ||||||
| Female | 17 (42.5%) | 1 (10%) | 3 (30%) | 6 (60%) | 7 (70%) | ||
| Male | 23 (57.5%) | 9 (90%) | 7 (70%) | 4 (40%) | 3 (30%) | ||
| Course duration | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | < 0.001§ | p1-2, p1-3 p1-4, p2-4 |
| Subspecialty | 0.104 | ||||||
| Diagnostic radiology | 35 (87.5%) | 7 (70%) | 8 (80%) | 10 (100%) | 10 (100%) | ||
| Interventional radiology | 5 (12.5%) | 3 (30%) | 2 (20%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| Focus | 0.511 | ||||||
| Pathological radiology | 38 (95%) | 10 (100%) | 9 (90%) | 9 (90%) | 10 (100%) | ||
| Anatomical radiology | 2 (5%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (10%) | 1 (10%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| Objective | 0.473 | ||||||
| Adult | 35 (87.5%) | 9 (90%) | 8 (80%) | 8 (80%) | 10 (100%) | ||
| Children | 5 (12.5%) | 1 (10%) | 2 (20%) | 2 (20%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| Region | |||||||
| Head–neck | 20 (50%) | 6 (60%) | 4 (40%) | 2 (20%) | 8 (80%) | 0.122 | |
| Thorax | 7 (17.5%) | 1 (10%) | 2 (20%) | 2 (20%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| Abdomen | 12 (30%) | 3 (30%) | 2 (20%) | 5 (50%) | 2 (20%) | ||
| Extremity | 1 (2.5%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (10%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| Modality | 0.084 | ||||||
| Magnetic resonance imaging | 19 (47.5%) | 6 (60%) | 3 (30%) | 2 (20%) | 8 (80%) | ||
| Computed tomography | 15 (37.5%) | 2 (20%) | 4 (40%) | 7 (70%) | 2 (20%) | ||
| Digital subtraction angiography | 4 (10%) | 2 (20%) | 2 (20%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| Ultrasound | 2 (5%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (10%) | 1 (10%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| Study design | < 0.001§ | ||||||
| Retrospective | 26 (65%) | 1 (10%) | 8 (80%) | 8 (80%) | 9 (90%) | ||
| Prospective | 14 (35%) | 9 (90%) | 2 (20%) | 2 (20%) | 1 (10%) | ||
| Data collection duration | 2.50 | 3.00 | 1.50 | 3.25 | 1.50 | 0.024§ | |
| Sample | 60.50 | 102 | 65.50 | 52.50 | 48.50 | 0.079 | p1-4 |
Comparison of main characteristics among four thesis types. § Statistically significant
| Overall | PhD (1) | Specialist II (2) | Master (3) | Residency (4) | p | Post hoc§ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title words | 19.50 | 26.50 | 21.00 | 16.50 | 17.00 | 0.006§ | p1-3, p1-4 |
| Aim | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 0.081 | |
| Table | 28.00 | 35.00 | 27.00 | 22.00 | 27.50 | 0.055 | |
| Diagram | 9.00 | 10.50 | 5.50 | 8.50 | 15.50 | 0.008§ | p2-4 |
| Figure | 22.00 | 35.00 | 22.00 | 21.00 | 21.00 | 0.003§ | p1-2, p1-3 p1-4 |
| Introduction | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 2.00 | < 0.001§ | p1-3, p2-3 |
| Literature review | 31.50 | 39.50 | 28.50 | 27.00 | 27.50 | 0.001§ | p1-2, p1-3 p1-4 |
| Materials and method | 13.00 | 17.50 | 14.00 | 7.50 | 10.50 | 0.001§ | p1-3, p1-4 p2-3 |
| Results | 21.00 | 31.50 | 18.00 | 16.50 | 22.00 | < 0.001§ | p1-2, p1-3 |
| Discussion | 23.50 | 37.00 | 21.00 | 19.00 | 24.50 | < 0.001§ | p1-2, p1-3 p1-4 |
| Conclusion | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 0.301 | |
| Pages | 90.50 | 130.00 | 85.50 | 72.00 | 87.50 | < 0.001§ | p1-2, p1-3 p1-4 |
| References | 84.50 | 139.50 | 85.50 | 53.00 | 61.00 | < 0.001§ | p1-2, p1-3 p1-4, p2-4 |
Comparison of publications derived from thesis among four thesis types § Statistically significant
| Overall | PhD (1) | Specialist II (2) | Master (3) | Residency (4) | p | Post hoc§ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Domestic publication | 1.00 | 2.50 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 | < 0.001§ | p1-2, p1-3, p2-4 |
| International publication | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.392 |