3D printed ventricular septal defect patch: a primer for the 2015 Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) hands-on course in 3D printing.

Hand-held three dimensional models of the human anatomy and pathology, tailored-made protheses, and custom-designed implants can be derived from imaging modalities, most commonly Computed Tomography (CT). However, standard DICOM format images cannot be 3D printed; instead, additional image post-processing is required to transform the anatomy of interest into Standard Tessellation Language (STL) format is needed. This conversion, and the subsequent 3D printing of the STL file, requires a series of steps. Initial post-processing involves the segmentation-demarcation of the desired for 3D printing parts and creating of an initial STL file. Then, Computer Aided Design (CAD) software is used, particularly for wrapping, smoothing and trimming. Devices and implants that can also be 3D printed, can be designed using this software environment. The purpose of this article is to provide a tutorial on 3D Printing with the test case of complex congenital heart disease (CHD). While the infant was born with double outlet right ventricle (DORV), this hands-on guide to be featured at the 2015 annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America Hands-on Course in 3D Printing focused on the additional finding of a ventricular septal defect (VSD). The process of segmenting the heart chambers and the great vessels will be followed by optimization of the model using CAD software. A virtual patch that accurately matches the patient's VSD will be designed and both models will be prepared for 3D printing

Assessment of the quality and variability of health information on chronic pain websites using the DISCERN instrument

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Internet is used increasingly by providers as a tool for disseminating pain-related health information and by patients as a resource about health conditions and treatment options. However, health information on the Internet remains unregulated and varies in quality, accuracy and readability. The objective of this study was to determine the quality of pain websites, and explain variability in quality and readability between pain websites.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Five key terms (pain, chronic pain, back pain, arthritis, and fibromyalgia) were entered into the Google, Yahoo and MSN search engines. Websites were assessed using the DISCERN instrument as a quality index. Grade level readability ratings were assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Algorithm. Univariate (using alpha = 0.20) and multivariable regression (using alpha = 0.05) analyses were used to explain the variability in DISCERN scores and grade level readability using potential for commercial gain, health related seals of approval, language(s) and multimedia features as independent variables.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 300 websites were assessed, 21 excluded in accordance with the exclusion criteria and 110 duplicate websites, leaving 161 unique sites. About 6.8% (11/161 websites) of the websites offered patients' commercial products for their pain condition, 36.0% (58/161 websites) had a health related seal of approval, 75.8% (122/161 websites) presented information in English only and 40.4% (65/161 websites) offered an interactive multimedia experience. In assessing the quality of the unique websites, of a maximum score of 80, the overall average DISCERN Score was 55.9 (13.6) and readability (grade level) of 10.9 (3.9). The multivariable regressions demonstrated that website seals of approval (<it>P </it>= 0.015) and potential for commercial gain (<it>P </it>= 0.189) were contributing factors to higher DISCERN scores, while seals of approval (<it>P </it>= 0.168) and interactive multimedia (<it>P </it>= 0.244) contributed to lower grade level readability, as indicated by estimates of the beta coefficients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The overall quality of pain websites is moderate, with some shortcomings. Websites that scored high using the DISCERN questionnaire contained health related seals of approval and provided commercial solutions for pain related conditions while those with low readability levels offered interactive multimedia options and have been endorsed by health seals.</p

Impact of COVID-19 and Socioeconomic Factors on Delays in High-Risk MRI Breast Cancer Screening

The purpose of this study is to investigate if there was a delay in high-risk MRI breast cancer screening in our local region, if this delay is ongoing despite COVID-19 vaccinations, and if demographic and socioeconomic factors are associated with these delays. Six-hundred and sixty-five high-risk breast patients from 23 January 2018–30 September 2021 were included. Delays were determined by comparing the time in between each patients’ MRI screening exams prior to the COVID-19 pandemic to the time in between MRI screening exams during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the time in between exams when our patients started receiving vaccinations. Delays were analyzed via logistical regression with demographic and socioeconomic factors to determine if there was an association between these factors and delays. Significant time delays in between MRI screening exams were found between the pre-COVID timeframe compared to during the height of COVID. Significant time delays also persisted during the timeframe after patients started getting vaccinations. There were no associations with delays and socioeconomic or demographic factors. Significant time delays were found in between MRI high-risk breast cancer screening examinations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These delays were not exacerbated by demographic or socioeconomic factors

A Comprehensive Analysis of Authorship in Radiology Journals

Objectives The purpose of our study was to investigate authorship trends in radiology journals, and whether International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations have had an impact on these trends. A secondary objective was to explore other variables associated with authorship trends. Methods A retrospective, bibliometric analysis of 49 clinical radiology journals published from 1946–2013 was conducted. The following data was exported from MEDLINE (1946 to May 2014) for each article: authors’ full name, year of publication, primary author institution information, language of publication and publication type. Microsoft Excel Visual Basics for Applications scripts were programmed to categorize extracted data. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the overall mean number of authors per article over time, impact of ICMJE guidelines, authorship frequency per journal, country of origin, article type and language of publication. Results 216,271 articles from 1946–2013 were included. A univariate analysis of the mean authorship frequency per year of all articles yielded a linear relationship between time and authorship frequency. The mean number of authors per article in 1946 (1.42) was found to have increased consistently by 0.07 authors/ article per year (R² = 0.9728, P<0.001) to 5.79 authors/article in 2013. ICMJE guideline dissemination did not have an impact on this rise in authorship frequency. There was considerable variability in mean authors per article and change over time between journals, country of origin, language of publication and article type. Conclusion Overall authorship for 49 radiology journals across 68 years has increased markedly with no demonstrated impact from ICMJE guidelines. A higher number of authors per article was seen in articles from: higher impact journals, European and Asian countries, original research type, and those journals who explicitly endorse the ICMJE guidelines

Overall mean number of authors/article for all included journals from 1946 to 2013.

<p>Analysis of mean authorship trends over time for radiology journals from 1946 to 2013. Time points for the implementation and major revisions to ICJME guidelines in 1979, 1997, 2003, 2010 and 2013 are denoted by red arrows.</p

Per Journal Demographics and Linear Regression Analysis of Authorship over Time.

<p>Data collected per journal (Starting year in which data was collected on MEDLINE, total # of articles analyzed, total # of authors analyzed, mean number of authors/article for all years included per journal). Linear regression analysis of the relationship between mean number of authors/article per journal and time. See <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0139005#pone.0139005.s001" target="_blank">S1 Table</a> for full journal names. Explicit endorsement of ICJME guidelines on each journal’s website was determined. 1) Explicitly endorses ICMJE. 2) Does not explicitly endorse ICMJE but has a statement regarding authorship criteria in their instructions for authors. 3) Has no mention of ICJME or authorship contributions.</p

Relationship between Impact Factor and Average Authorship in 2013.

<p>The 2013 impact factor of journals analyzed compared against the average number of authors/article in 2013. <i>JBR-TBR</i> and <i>Journal of Radiology Case Reports</i> were excluded from this graph as they did not have a 2013 impact factor.</p