Journals / Tanısal ve Girişimsel Radyoloji (Yeni Adı: Dİagnostic & Intervent. Radiol) / 2003 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2

Status of international radiological publications and archive utilization in Turkey

Uluslararası radyolojik yayınlar ve arşiv kullanımında Türkiye'nin yeri

Pages
135–138
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The lack of sufficient technical infrastructure and shortage of staff may be important reasons for such differences.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSE: To investigate the use of radiological technology and archive utilization in two sampled international radiological journals and radiology clinics in Turkey, and to explore the impact of these findings on radiological publications.
📊
Key Findings & Data:MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomly selected 22 issues of AJR and Radiology, 1037 articles in total, were reviewed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The lack of sufficient technical infrastructure and shortage of staff may be important reasons for such differences.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Dergicilik · tıbbi · Radyoloji

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the use of radiological technology and archive utilization in two sampled international radiological journals and radiology clinics in Turkey, and to explore the impact of these findings on radiological publications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomly selected 22 issues of AJR and Radiology, 1037 articles in total, were reviewed. The type of article, radiological technique, country of origin, use of advanced technology and archiving were defined for each article. Additionally, a questionnaire, investigating implementation of various radiological devices, archiving and their technical features, was posted to the chairmen of the radiology departments in Turkey. RESULTS: Most of the articles (61.4%) originated in US. Studies from Turkey constituted 0.9% of the articles. This ratio was 2% for France, which has almost the same population as Turkey. Magnetic resonance imaging was used in 27.4% of cases. Based on our definition criteria, advanced technology and archiving were used in 19% and 32%, respectively. Data returns of the questionnaire were obtained from 17 of 45 (38%) radiology clinics. Responding clinics had conventional radiography, B mode ultrasound and conventional computed tomography. Archiving of all radiological examinations, excluding plain radiography, was performed in one center while only interesting radiological images and variations were stored in 8 departments. Implementation of archiving was reported sufficient in three clinics, partly sufficient in ten clinics and insufficient in four clinics. Archiving was performed by medical doctors in most of the cases (53%). The leading problems of archiving were technical and economical insufficiencies (82%). CONCLUSION: Archiving is more commonly required than utilization of advanced technology for international radiological publications. The rate of articles originating from Turkey was lower compared to some countries having the same population as Turkey. The lack of sufficient technical infrastructure and shortage of staff may be important reasons for such differences.

Özet

AMAÇ Örnekleme yapılan iki uluslararası radyoloji dergisinde ve Türkiye'de radyolojik teknoloji ve arşiv kullanımının değerlendirilmesi, bu bulguların radyolojik yayınlara etkisinin araştırılması. GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM 1999-2001 yıllarına ait rastgele seçilmiş 22 American Journal of Roentgenology ve Radiology dergisinden 1037 makale tarandı. Her makalenin türü, kullanılan radyolojik teknik, köken aldığı ülke, ileri teknoloji ve arşiv kullanılıp kullanılmadığı belirlendi. Ayrıca Türkiye'deki 45 radyoloji kliniğine anket formları gönderilerek sahip oldukları radyolojik cihaz ve teknik özellikleri, varsa radyolojik arşivlerinin özellikleri, eksiklikleri ve anketi yanıtlayanların düşünceleri araştırıldı. Çalışmaların büyük kısmı (%61.4) ABD'den kaynaklanırken, Türkiye kökenli çalışmalar %0.9 oranında pay aldı. Çalışmaların %27.4'ünde manyetik rezonans görüntülemeden yararlanıldı. Tanım kriterlerimize göre yüksek teknolojiden %19, arşivlemeden %32 oranında yararlanıldı. Radyoloji kliniklerine gönderilen anket formlarının değerlendirilmesinde 45 merkezin 17'sinden (%38) yanıt alındı. Bu merkezlerin tümünde konvansiyonel röntgen, B Mod ultrasonografi ve konvansiyonel bilgisayarlı tomografi cihazı bulunmaktaydı. Bir merkezde direkt radyografiler dışındaki tüm radyolojik incelemeler, 8 merkezde sadece ilginç patoloji ve varyasyonlar arşivlenmekteydi. Arşivleme alt yapısı 3 merkezde yeterli, 10 merkezde kısmen yeterli ve 4 merkezde yetersiz bulundu. Arşivleme genellikle (%53) doktorlar tarafından yapılmaktaydı. Arşivle ilgili sorunların başında (%82) teknik alt yapı ve parasal eksiklikler gelmekteydi. SONUÇ Uluslararası radyolojik yayınlarda arşiv, yüksek teknolojik cihazlara oranla daha fazla kullanılmaktadır. Türkiye'nin taranan dergilerdeki yayın oranı eş nüfuslu bazı ülkelerle kıyaslandığında düşük bulunmuştur. Arşivlemedeki alt yapı ve personel eksikliği bu farklılığın önemli bir nedeni olabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZSUNAR, Y., KEÇELİ, M., ÜNSAL, A., AKDİLLİ, A., KÖSEOĞLU, K., KARAMAN, C. Z. (2003). Status of international radiological publications and archive utilization in Turkey. Tanısal ve Girişimsel Radyoloji (Yeni Adı: Dİagnostic & Intervent. Radiol), Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2, 135–138. https://ajindex.com/articles/363216

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. McKinlay JB. Technology and the futureof health care. 1st ed. The MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, Boston, MA,1982;69-103
  2. Mussurakis S. Financial support for rese-arch in radiology: a survey of original in-vestigations published in AJR and Radi-ology. AJR 1994; 163:973-992
  3. Chew FS. The scientific literature in diag-nostic radiology for American readers: asurvey and analysis of journals, papers andauthors. AJR 1986; 147:1055-106
  4. Hansen ME, McIntire DD. Reference cita-tions in radiology: accuracy and appropri-ateness of use in two major journals. AJR1994; 163:719-723
  5. Elster AD, Chen MY. The internationaliza-tion of the AJR: 1980-1992. AJR 1994;162:519-522
  6. Ozsunar Y, Unsal A, Akdilli A, KaramanC, Huisman TA, Sorensen AG. Techno-logy and archives in radiology research: Asampling analysis of articles published inthe AJR and Radiology. AJR 2001;177:1281-1284
  7. Virapongse C, Emerson S, Li KC, Martine-au BS, Staab EV. Research resources inacademic radiology. Radiology 1990;175:247-251
  8. Dugas M, Trumm C, Stabler A, et al. Case-oriented computer-based-training in radi-ology: concept, implementation and evalu-ation. BMC Med Educ 2001; 1:5
  9. Passadore DJ, Isoardi RA, Ariza PP, PadinC. Use of a low-cost, PC-based image revi-ew workstation at a radiology department.J Digit Imaging 2001; 14:222-3
  10. Maass M, Kosonen M, Kormano M. Costanalysis of Turku University Central Hos-pital PACS in 1998. Comput MethodsPrograms Biomed 2001; 66:41-45
  11. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ, Pome-rantz S, Dahlke A, Rallis D. Radiologists'productivity in the interpretation of CTscans: a comparison of PACS with conven-tional film. AJR 2001; 176:861-864
  12. Mullins ME, Mehta A, Patel H, McLoudTC, Novelline RA. Impact of PACS on theeducation of radiology residents: the resi-dents perspective. Acad Radiol 2001; 8:67-73
  13. Brelstaff G. Internet patient records: newtechniques. J Med Internet Res 2001; 3:E8
  14. Wiggins RH 3rd, Davidson HC, Dilda P,Harnsberger HR, Katzman GL. The evolu-tion of filmless radiology teaching. J DigitImaging 2001; 14:236-237
  15. Hayt DB, Alexander S, Drakakis J, Ber-debes N. Filmless in 60 days: the impact ofpicture archiving and communicationssystems within a large urban hospital. JDigit Imaging 2001; 14:62-7