ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Counting coins in the dark-Austrian, German, and Swiss medical students' perceptions of radiology.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are you always working in the dark? The impact of limited daylight exposure on radiologists' health.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Shining light on the future of radiology: addressing medical students' perceptions.European radiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the overall attitude of medical students towards radiology, their perceptions of the university curriculum, the clinical relevance, and the prospects within the specialty, as well as identify reasons for and against choosing a radiologist's career. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn 18-question survey was distributed among 21 universities in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria in January 2024. It was returned by 1184 medical students (753 female, 427 male, 2 diverse, 2 others) within one month. The survey encompassed sociodemographic data, questions regarding the curriculum, the perceived clinical relevance of radiology, as well as job attractiveness, students' expectations regarding salary and work-life balance, the role of artificial intelligence (AI), and students' outlook on the future.
resultsSeven hundred and sixteen (60%) participants expressed a desire for increased exposure to radiology within the medical curriculum and 1177 (99%) acknowledged the clinical importance of radiology. However, 755 (64%) students definitively ruled out pursuing a career as a radiologist, citing limited patient interaction as the primary deterrent (n = 725). Notably, 85% of participants considered the potential salary and work-life balance in radiology as favorable compared to other medical disciplines. Furthermore, 396 students (33%) were discouraged by contemporary AI developments from pursuing a career in radiology.
conclusionWhile medical students recognize the clinical importance of radiology, the majority does not consider becoming radiologists. The findings suggest a need for educational initiatives to address misconceptions and enhance the attractiveness of radiology as a viable career option for medical graduates. KEY POINTS: Question The majority of medical students do not consider pursuing a career as radiologists though they recognize the clinical relevance and importance. Findings Students hesitate to pursue it as a career due to the perceived lack of patient interaction and concerns regarding the potential impact of AI. Clinical relevance Radiologists' workload is increasing globally. However, the available workforce has remained relatively stable. Thus, recruiting future doctors into the specialty is extremely important. Therefore, insights into medical students' contemporary perceptions of radiology are valuable in addressing reservations and misconceptions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.