In a publishing climate polluted with nonstop noise, irresistible clickbait and non-newsworthy nonsense, it can be tempting for researchers as well as reporters to subtly sensationalize findings and conclusions from clinical studies.

There is no shortage of buy-in on the concept of comparative effectiveness research as promoted by HHS’s Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality in the Affordable Care Act era, but the assent isn’t translating into impact, according to a study in the February edition of the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.

It’s one of the primary goals at the heart of patient safety in radiology: balancing the need for heightened image quality with the inherent risks of radiation exposure. It’s also a goal that prompted researchers from the University of Massachusetts Medical School to develop some simple yet creative radiation-dose solutions.

The more “likes” viewers give digital RSNA electronic education exhibits (EEEs), the more likely those EEEs are to win RSNA awards and/or be chosen to run in RSNA’s medical-education journal RadioGraphics.

According to a recent study in Academic Radiology, a thorough, data-driven approach can reduce delays for interventional radiology (IR) patients and lead to more procedures beginning on time.

Wrong-patient and wrong-study events in radiology can be reduced by implementing a two-person verification system, according to a recent study published in the American Journal of Roentgenology.

The head count of radiology trainees in the U.S. blossomed 84.2 percent between 1997 and 2011, but the workforce expansion isn’t as heartening for the specialty as it initially sounds.

A bipartisan group of congressional leaders has joined other calls for a delay in the Meaningful Use program.