Advertisement

Building for Tomorrow Today

Opportunities and Directions in Radiology Resident Research
Published:October 14, 2014DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.08.012

      Rationale and Objectives

      With rapid scientific and technological advancements in radiological research, there is renewed emphasis on promoting early research training to develop researchers who are capable of tackling the hypothesis-driven research that is typically funded in contemporary academic research enterprises. This review article aims to introduce radiology residents to the abundant radiology research opportunities available to them and to encourage early research engagement among trainees.

      Materials and Methods

      To encourage early resident participation in radiology research, we review the various research opportunities available to trainees spanning basic, clinical, and translational science opportunities to ongoing research in information technology, informatics, and quality improvement research.

      Conclusions

      There is an incredible breadth and depth of ongoing research at academic radiology departments across the country, and the material presented herein aspires to highlight both subject matter and opportunities available to radiology residents eager to engage in radiologic research. The opportunities for interested radiology residents are as numerous as they are broad, spanning the basic sciences to clinical research to informatics, with abundant opportunities to shape our future practice of radiology.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Arenson R.L.
        • Dunnick N.R.
        • Hillman B.J.
        Time for change: new emphasis on training for radiology research.
        Acad Radiol. 2002; 9: 695-699
        • Barker C.F.
        Making imaging research a part of radiology resident training.
        Acad Radiol. 2013; 20: 135-136
        • Collins J.
        Resident research.
        Acad Radiol. 2003; 10: S24-S30
        • Costello J.R.
        • Mullins M.E.
        • Votaw J.R.
        • et al.
        Establishing a new radiology residency research track.
        Acad Radiol. 2013; 20: 243-248
        • Pretorius E.S.
        • Solomon J.A.
        • Stribling C.
        Medical student attitudes toward inclusion of a research year within diagnostic radiology residency: a survey of students participating in the 2002 NRMP match. National Resident Matching Program.
        Acad Radiol. 2003; 10: 77-82
      1. ACGME. The diagnostic radiology milestone project. Available at: https://http://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/PDFs/Milestones/DiagnosticRadiologyMilestones.pdf. Accessed February 19, 2014. 2014.

        • Dunnick N.R.
        Opinion. Report of the 2002 intersociety Commission meeting: Radiology 2002—today's research is tomorrow's practice.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 180: 925-928
      2. ICSU. The value of basic scientific research. The Value of Basic Science Research: Paris, November, 2004.

        • Gutman S.
        • Kessler L.G.
        The US Food and Drug Administration perspective on cancer biomarker development.
        Nat Rev Cancer. 2006; 6: 565-571
        • Smith J.J.
        • Sorensen A.G.
        • Thrall J.H.
        Biomarkers in imaging: realizing radiology's future.
        Radiology. 2003; 227: 633-638
        • Sawyers C.L.
        The cancer biomarker problem.
        Nature. 2008; 452: 548-552
        • Van Beers B.E.
        • Vilgrain V.
        Biomarkers in abdominal imaging.
        Abdom Imaging. 2009; 34: 663-667
        • Hanahan D.
        • Weinberg R.A.
        The hallmarks of cancer.
        Cell. 2000; 100: 57-70
        • Weissleder R.
        • Pittet M.J.
        Imaging in the era of molecular oncology.
        Nature. 2008; 452: 580-589
        • Chithriki M.
        Research during radiology residency: challenges for the future.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2004; 1: 361-363
        • Ai T.
        • Morelli J.N.
        • Hu X.
        • et al.
        A historical overview of magnetic resonance imaging, focusing on technological innovations.
        Invest Radiol. 2012; 47: 725-741
        • Avrin D.E.
        • Urbania T.H.
        Demise of film.
        Acad Radiol. 2014; 21: 303-304
        • Huang H.K.
        Short history of PACS. Part I: USA.
        Eur J Radiol. 2011; 78: 163-176
        • Li K.C.
        • Marcovici P.
        • Phelps A.
        • et al.
        Digitization of medicine: how radiology can take advantage of the digital revolution.
        Acad Radiol. 2013; 20: 1479-1494
        • Blumenthal D.
        Launching HITECH.
        N Engl J Med. 2010; 362: 382-385
        • Blumenthal D.
        Implementation of the federal health information technology initiative.
        N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 2426-2431
        • Blumenthal D.
        • Tavenner M.
        The “meaningful use” regulation for electronic health records.
        N Engl J Med. 2010; 363: 501-504
        • Jha A.K.
        Meaningful use of electronic health records: the road ahead.
        JAMA. 2010; 304: 1709-1710
        • Mendelson D.S.
        • Rubin D.L.
        Imaging informatics: essential tools for the delivery of imaging services.
        Acad Radiol. 2013; 20: 1195-1212
        • Rubin D.L.
        Informatics in radiology: measuring and improving quality in radiology: meeting the challenge with informatics.
        Radiographics. 2011; 31: 1511-1527
        • El-Kareh R.
        • Hasan O.
        • Schiff G.D.
        Use of health information technology to reduce diagnostic errors.
        BMJ Qual Saf. 2013; 22: ii40-ii51
        • Prevedello L.
        • Khorasani R.
        Enhancing quality assurance and quality control programs: IT tools can help.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2009; 6: 888-889
        • Safdar N.M.
        • Siegel E.
        • Erickson B.J.
        • et al.
        Enabling comparative effectiveness research with informatics: show me the data!.
        Acad Radiol. 2011; 18: 1072-1076
        • Mendelson D.S.
        • Bak P.R.
        • Menschik E.
        • et al.
        Informatics in radiology: image exchange: IHE and the evolution of image sharing.
        Radiographics. 2008; 28: 1817-1833
        • Siegel E.L.
        • Channin D.S.
        Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise: a primer. Part 1. Introduction.
        Radiographics. 2001; 21: 1339-1341
        • Rubin D.L.
        • Napel S.
        Imaging informatics: toward capturing and processing semantic information in radiology images.
        Yearb Med Inform. 2010; : 34-42
        • Sistrom C.L.
        • Langlotz C.P.
        A framework for improving radiology reporting.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2005; 2: 159-167
        • Kruskal J.B.
        • Eisenberg R.
        • Sosna J.
        • et al.
        Quality Initiatives.
        Radiographics. 2011; 31: 1499-1509
        • Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (U.S.)
        • United States President
        • United States Congress, United States
        • Department of Health and Human Services
        Report to the President and the Congress.
        US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC2009
        • Institute of Medicine (U.S.)
        Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research.
        National Academies Press, Washington, DC2009
        • Lee C.I.
        • Jarvik J.G.
        Patient-centered outcomes research in radiology: trends in funding and methodology.
        Acad Radiol. 2014; 21: 1156-1161
        • Hoffmann U.
        • Truong Q.A.
        • Schoenfeld D.A.
        • et al.
        Coronary CT angiography versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain.
        N Engl J Med. 2012; 367: 299-308
        • Kerlikowske K.
        • Hubbard R.A.
        • Miglioretti D.L.
        • et al.
        Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.
        Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155: 493-502
        • Turnbull L.
        • Brown S.
        • Harvey I.
        • et al.
        Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2010; 375: 563-571
        • McDonald J.S.
        • Port J.D.
        • Bender C.E.
        How to set up a departmental comparative effectiveness research unit: one department's experience.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 202: 561-565
        • Orth R.C.
        • Cantor S.B.
        Comparative effectiveness research in pediatric radiology.
        Pediatr Radiol. 2014; 44: 940-941
        • Tunis S.R.
        • Benner J.
        • McClellan M.
        Comparative effectiveness research: policy context, methods development and research infrastructure.
        Stat Med. 2010; 29: 1963-1976
        • Lipscomb R.
        • An S.
        Mentoring 101: building a mentoring relationship.
        J Am Diet Assoc. 2010; 110: 1002-1008
        • Sanfey H.
        • Hollands C.
        • Gantt N.L.
        Strategies for building an effective mentoring relationship.
        Am J Surg. 2013; 206: 714-718