Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Curr Probl Diagn Radiol ; 50(2): 126-131, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-922307


PURPOSE: TikTok, the fastest growing social media application worldwide, has been infrequently studied in medicine. We analyzed the top radiology-related posts on TikTok in order to describe opportunities for radiology engagement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrieved the top 300 posts meeting the search criteria "radiology." User- and post-related data were categorized based on a prespecified coding system. Descriptive statistics were reported. Kruskal-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to assess for differences in followers, plays, likes, and comments among posts and users. RESULTS: 284 working posts were broadcast by 187 unique users with median 119 followers (interquartile range [IQR]: 31-1,206) and 20 posts (IQR: 7-49). Most (81%, 151/187) were nonphysician radiology personnel, while only 5% (9/187) were radiologists. Posts by radiologists had more plays than those by nonphysician radiology personnel (median 3643 vs 1282, P = 0.001). The 284 posts had median 1520 plays (IQR 429-4374), 60 likes (IQR 18-272), and 2 comments (IQR 0-9). Most posts were work-related (184/284, 65%), followed by clinical (68/284, 24%), personal (30/284, 11%), or promotional (2/284, 1%). However, posts by radiologists were mostly clinical (65%, 31/48) and represented a large majority of posted imaging cases (29/33, 88%). Posts about COVID-19 represented 38% (107/284) of the study sample and 48% (93/193) of posts after the first U.S. COVID-19 case COVID-19 posts had significantly more comments (3 vs. 2, P = 0.034) and more likes approaching significance (89 vs 51, P = 0.134) than non-COVID-19 posts. CONCLUSIONS: Though radiologists represent a minority of TikTok users their post represent the majority of this platform's clinical content. This presents an important opportunity for radiologists to utilize TikTok for contemporary, unique content creation and engagement with nonphysician radiology personnel.

Health Communication/methods , Radiology/methods , Radiology/statistics & numerical data , Social Media/statistics & numerical data , Cross-Sectional Studies , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Humans
J Korean Med Sci ; 35(40): e368, 2020 Oct 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-881337


BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has escalated to be a global threat to public health. Analysis of the use of radiology resources may render us insight regarding the public health behavior during pandemic. We measured the influence COVID-19 had on the use of radiology resources in terms of the number of examinations performed, and turnaround time for portable radiography. METHODS: This study was conducted at a tertiary hospital located in area where the prevalence of COVID-19 infection was low (0.01%). We compared the number of radiology examinations 1) before pandemic (in 2019) vs. during peak of pandemic (January to March 2020), and 2) before pandemic vs. after the peak of pandemic (April to June 2020) via t-tests. We repeated similar analyses for subgroups as follows: gender, age, department (outpatient, inpatient, emergency, screening), body parts, and modality. We also performed a survey of radiologic technologists regarding the turnaround time and rate-limiting step of portable radiography for patients with and without suspicion or confirmation of COVID-19. RESULTS: Although not statistically significant, the daily number of examinations during the peak of pandemic decreased by 9 percentage points (2,638 vs. 2,413; difference [95% CI], -225 [-489, 38]; P = 0.094). The percentage change was especially notable for children, emergency, and screening department (25, 19, and 44 percentage points, respectively). After the peak of the pandemic, the number of examinations increased back to near the pre-pandemic level (2,638 vs. 2,588; -50 [-317, 218]; P = 0.71). The turnaround time for portable radiography tended to be longer for patients with suspicion or confirmation of COVID-19, with donning personal protective equipment being the major rate-limiting step. CONCLUSION: The number of examinations decreased during the pandemic, reflecting the tendency of the public to refrain from seeking medical care even in a community of low infection risk. Nevertheless, burden of healthcare providers may not have decreased as much, considering longer turnaround time required for COVID-19 related examinations.

Coronavirus Infections/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnostic imaging , Radiology/statistics & numerical data , Radiology/trends , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Child , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Internet , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Prevalence , Tertiary Care Centers , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Young Adult
J Am Coll Radiol ; 17(9): 1086-1095, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-680404


OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in significant loss of radiologic volume as a result of shelter-at-home mandates and delay of non-time-sensitive imaging studies to preserve capacity for the pandemic. We analyze the volume-related impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on six academic medical systems (AMSs), three in high COVID-19 surge (high-surge) and three in low COVID-19 surge (low-surge) regions, and a large national private practice coalition. We sought to assess adaptations, risks of actions, and lessons learned. METHODS: Percent change of 2020 volume per week was compared with the corresponding 2019 volume calculated for each of the 14 imaging modalities and overall total, outpatient, emergency, and inpatient studies in high-surge AMSs and low-surge AMSs and the practice coalition. RESULTS: Steep examination volume drops occurred during week 11, with slow recovery starting week 17. The lowest total AMS volume drop was 40% compared with the same period the previous year, and the largest was 70%. The greatest decreases were seen with screening mammography and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans, and the smallest decreases were seen with PET/CT, x-ray, and interventional radiology. Inpatient volume was least impacted compared with outpatient or emergency imaging. CONCLUSION: Large percentage drops in volume were seen from weeks 11 through 17, were seen with screening studies, and were larger for the high-surge AMSs than for the low-surge AMSs. The lowest drops in volume were seen with modalities in which delays in imaging had greater perceived adverse consequences.

Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Infection Control/organization & administration , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography/statistics & numerical data , Radiology/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Diagnostic Imaging/methods , Female , Forecasting , Humans , Incidence , Learning , Male , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Radiology/trends , Risk Assessment , United States