Search

Objective: Two-tiered preference signaling has been implemented in the radiology residency application system to reduce congestion in the setting of high-volume applications. Signals are an indicator of strong interest that an applicant can transmit to a limited number of programs. This study assessed the impact of program signaling on interview invitations, how applicants strategically used signals based on their application's competitiveness, and applicants' attitudes toward the current signaling system., Methods: A survey was sent to radiology residency applicants registered with TheRadRoom during the 2024 application cycle. We queried the applicants' background, applications, signal distribution, and interview outcome depending on the type of signal sent. We also asked whether respondents received an interview invitation from a hypothetical "comparator nonsignaled program" if they had one additional signal to use. Group differences were assessed using nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank test., Results: A total of 202 applicants completed the survey (28% response rate). Most applied to diagnostic radiology (81%). Nearly all respondents used all six gold (98%) and six silver (96.5%) signals. Interview invitation rates were significantly higher for signaled programs (59.8% ± 27.4%) than nonsignaled (8.5% ± 8.5%); the invitation rate at the comparator nonsignaled programs was 37%. Gold-signaled programs had significantly higher interview rates (67.8% ± 29.3) than silver (51.8% ± 31.3%). Respondents used 49.2% (±21.7%) of their signals for "likely to match" programs, 33.1% (±20.9%) for "aspirational" programs, and 17.6% (±15.8%) for "safety" programs. Most respondents (146; 76%) supported continuing the signaling system for future cycles., Conclusion: Signaling programs significantly enhanced interview invitation rates, with gold signals being more effective than silver. The applicants used about six total signals for "likely-to-match" programs, two for "aspirational" programs, and about four for "safety" programs., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To explore the current status and determine the uniformity of parental leave policies among US radiology residency programs., Methods: An electronic survey was developed and sent to 222 radiology residency program directors (PDs) in June 2019 to assess their policies and attitudes toward parental leave. The survey was administered via the Internet Qualtrics Research Suite (Qualtrics, Provo, Utah) format with four reminders sent over the course of 2 months before closing the data collection., Results: In all, 74 PDs responded to the survey. Of those, 88% claimed to have a maternal leave policy (88% explicitly written and 77% paid); 80% had a paternal leave policy (88% explicitly written and 75% paid). The average length of maternal and paternal leaves was 7.4 ± 3.9 and 3.7 ± 3.7 weeks, respectively. Parental leaves were allocated at least every other year in over 70% of programs. Approximately 60% of the PDs required residents to make up call rotations for parental leaves. About 92% of responsive programs adjusted angiography and fluoroscopy rotations for trainees throughout the pregnancy or according to the trainee's request. Policies did not generally address issues of breastfeeding and nontraditional parenthood., Conclusion: The proportion of radiology programs with explicit maternal leave policies remained constant compared with previous surveys during the last two decades. However, there was a dramatic rise in the adoption of paternal leave policies. Overall, there was a lack of national uniformity in radiology residency programs' policies concerning parental leave, leaving open the possibility of national guidance in addressing the issue., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The neuroradiology fellowship match has been in existence for about 20 years. However, the elements by which neuroradiology fellowship program directors evaluate candidates have not been clearly elucidated. We sought to identify the factors that program directors use to rank neuroradiology fellowship applicants., Methods: An anonymous Qualtrics online five-question survey about educational credentials, personal traits, extracurricular activities, and demographic characteristics was sent to 72 neuroradiology program directors in April 2019. Each question required ranking of 10 factors based on different characteristics of fellowship candidates. Items included gender, nationality, US Medical Licensing Examination scores, internal applicants, work and research experience, recommendation letters, residency program, medical school attended, and visa status. Program directors had the ability to list any new characteristics that were not included in the survey., Results: In all, 68 of 72 (94.4%) neuroradiology programs responded to the survey. The most important criteria by which candidates were assessed were (1) residency program attended for educational credential, (2) personality as assessed by faculty at interviews for candidate personal traits, (3) research performed for candidate's extracurricular activities, and (4) likelihood of coming to or previous experience in the fellowship geographic area. Neuroradiology program directors independently stressed residency program attended, personality assessed during the interview by faculty, internal candidate status, letters of recommendation, and research activities as their top five criteria in ranking the candidates., Conclusion: Multiple factors are weighed by neuroradiology fellowship program directors in selecting fellows, but recent experiences in residency, research, and faculty interactions are prioritized. Internal candidates have an advantage for remaining as fellows within their residency programs., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Increasingly, medical journals are recognizing "equally credited authors" (ECA) in the primary and senior authorship of articles. The aim of this study was to assess the policies of co-first authorship, co-senior authorship, and designation of a corresponding author in the radiology literature., Methods: We identified 29 radiology journals based on impact factor ranking. Journal offices were contacted by phone and e-mail to ascertain their practices on first and senior authorship ECA designations. We surveyed the March, June, and December 2018 issues of each journal (when available) to assess the utilization of the co-designations in articles., Results: Twenty-five of 29 journals responded to our survey (response rate: 86.2%). Of 25 journals, 20 (80%) allowed co-first authorship. Among these, 4 of 25 journals (16%) allowed more than two co-first authors. Among the 25 responses, 14 journals (56%) allowed co-senior authorship. Among the 24 journals who responded to this specific question, 23 (96%) approved designation of a corresponding author, different from the first or senior author. The review of March, June, December 2018 editions found co-first authorship and co-senior authorship ECA rates of 8.6% (range 0.0%-22.7%) and 1.8% (range 0.0%-13.3%), respectively. A corresponding author other than first or senior author was noted in 13.3% (range 0.0%-34.7%)., Discussion: There has been widespread acceptance of the concept of ECA in the policies of the top cited imaging journals particularly for first authors (80%). However, the utilization of these designations is uncommon for first authorship (8.6%) and rare (1.8%) for senior authorship based on our 2018 sampling., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The ACR Appropriateness Criteria recommend performing noncontrast head CT (NCCT) for patients with sudden severe headache ("worst headache of life" [WHOL] or "thunderclap headache" [TCH]). The aim of this study was to assess the value of NCCT scanning in patients with known migraine histories and WHOL or TCH. The hypothesis was that there would be little utility in performing emergency department (ED) NCCT scans in migraineurs without other red flags, even if they had WHOL or TCH., Methods: The ED NCCT scans of all patients reporting WHOL or TCH who had established diagnoses of migraine were retrospectively reviewed over a 5-year period. Patients without known intracranial pathology, cancer, or immunocompromising disease or recent head trauma were included as the main study group. For comparison, patients with any of those factors were included as the comparison group. Scans were graded as (1) normal, (2) minor unimportant findings, (3) findings requiring intervention or follow-up, or (4) critical., Results: Two hundred twenty-four patients with the chief symptom of WHOL or TCH and a history of migraine who underwent ED NCCT were studied. In the main study group, no patients had grade 4 imaging findings (0%), one had a false-positive grade 3 finding (0.8%), and there were no cases of subarachnoid hemorrhage (0%). In the comparison group, six patients had grade 4 imaging findings (6.5%) and three had grade 3 findings (3.3%)., Conclusions: NCCT in known migraineurs with WHOL or TCH who do not have intracranial pathology, cancer, immunocompromising disease, or recent head trauma yielded no critical findings. Therefore, the value of scanning these patients is questionable., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Women in radiology are known to be underrepresented in academic leadership positions. We sought to determine if women are appropriately represented on editorial boards and editor-in-chief positions compared with their authorship contributions., Materials and Methods: We assessed the first and senior authorship male versus female gender breakdown of manuscripts published in nine high-impact American radiology journals 1 month per year from 2002 to 2017. We looked at the gender of the first authors, senior authors, editorial board members, and editors-in-chief of these journals to see if there was a gender discrepancy., Results: We assessed 3,702 first authors, 3,702 senior authors, and 9,400 editorial board members. Women were underrepresented on the editorial boards compared with their first-authored manuscript contribution in our sample of articles from every journal for every year and were underrepresented compared with their senior-authored manuscript contributions in 119 of 139 (85.6%) journal-years. The percentage of women as first authors (mean = 29.3 ± 9.9), senior authors (mean = 20.7 ± 8.1), and editorial board members (mean = 13.4 ± 6.5) showed major differences (P < .001). This gap did not significantly narrow over the 16 years of study. Notably, there was no woman as editor-in-chief for any of the journal-years., Conclusion: There is a gender gap in the composition of editorial boards in radiology compared with authorship contributions by women. Given the implications of editorial board assignment and editorship on women's academic advancement, journals may wish to consider strategies that will narrow the gap., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The radiology report serves as the primary means of communication between radiologist and clinician. However, the value clinicians place on imaging and reports is variable, with many images of studies or their reports never being viewed. This has implications on the perceived value of the radiologist in the imaging chain. We hypothesized that neurologists, neurosurgeons, and otolaryngologists would view neuroradiology images most frequently and neuroradiology reports least frequently of all medical specialties., Materials and Methods: Ordering data were collected on all neuroradiology studies over a 1-month period. Imaging study date and time stamps were obtained for (1) when imaging study orders were placed, (2) when the patient underwent the imaging study, (3) when the imaging studies were viewed, and (4) when the radiology reports were accessed and by whom. Each data point included provider names, locations, departments, and level of training., Results: There were 7,438 imaging neuroradiology studies ordered. Overall, 85.7% (6,372) of reports and 53.2% (3,956) of imaging studies were viewed and 13.1% (977) of studies had neither images nor reports viewed. Inpatient neurosurgeons and neurologists viewed both imaging and reports significantly more than primary care specialties (P < .001). In the outpatient setting, this trend stayed true for neurosurgeons though was not true for neurologists (P < .001). Outpatient study imaging and reports were both viewed the least (48.6%), and inpatient study reports were viewed the most (95.2%; P < .001)., Conclusion: Viewing of imaging and reports varies with neurosurgeons viewing neuroradiology studies more than all other medical specialties. Overall, the reports were viewed significantly more than the images, suggesting that the radiologist and his or her interpretation are more valuable than the study's images. The radiologists' value, as measured by reports viewed, was maximal with obstetricians and gynecologists and psychiatry clinicians., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have become more prevalent in radiology. However, the lack of standard methodology may lead to conflicting conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of an imaging modality and hinder CEA-based policy recommendations. This study reviews recent CEAs to identify areas of methodological variation, explore their impact on interpretation, and discuss optimal strategies for performing CEAs in radiology., Methods: We performed a systematic review for cost-utility analyses in radiology from 2013 to 2017. Cost and quality-of-life methods were analyzed and compared using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist., Results: Eighty cost-utility studies met our inclusion criteria. A payer perspective was the most common (70%) and hospital perspective the least common (5%). Fourteen studies (17.5%) did not report perspective, and 12 (15%) reported a perspective inconsistent with their performed analysis. Cost inclusion varied greatly between studies; adverse effects of imaging (20.5%) and hospitalization (34.6%) were the least frequently included direct costs. Studies that measured their own utilities most commonly used the EuroQol-5D and Short Form-6D questionnaires; however, most studies (80%) cited utilities from previous literature. Seventy-two studies (90%) used willingness-to-pay thresholds, and 30 used cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (41.7%)., Conclusion: We observed statistically significant methodological variation indicating the need for a standardized, accurate means of performing and presenting CEAs within radiology. We make several recommendations to address key problems regarding study perspective, cost inclusion, and use of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Further work is required to ensure comparability and transparency between studies such that policymakers are properly informed when utilizing CEA results., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To gauge the prevalence of sexual harassment (SH) and to understand the issues regarding its disclosure among radiologists., Methods: A questionnaire on ethics and SH was sent by e-mail to 1,569 radiologists and radiology trainees in an institutional database maintained for continuing medical education purposes on three separate occasions between September 17 and October 31, 2016. The link to the survey was also posted on social media sites via the authors' divisional and institutional accounts on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Aunt Minnie, as well as on ACR and RSNA web blogs., Results: Overall, 9.75% (39 of 400) respondents stated they had suffered SH, with more female (22 of 90 = 24.4%) than male victims (11 of 249 = 4.4%) (P < .001). Only 29.4% of SH victims said they would likely report SH (P < .001). Women (46 of 90 = 51.1%) said they were less likely to report SH than men (150 of 242 = 62.0%) (P = .03), and American medical school graduates (119 of 220 = 54.1%) were less likely than graduates from outside the United States (37 of 48 = 77.1%). Of 401 respondents to questions on SH, 28.7% (n = 115), including more women (38 of 91 = 41.8%) than men (61 of 249 = 24.5%) (P = .002), said they had witnessed SH., Conclusions: By percentage responding, female radiologists are more frequently victims and witnesses of sexual harassment but are less likely to report such cases. Steps need to be taken to eliminate a culture that leads radiologists to tolerate SH without addressing it., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Ineffective communication of critical findings (CFs) is a patient safety issue. The aim of this study was to assess whether a feedback program for faculty members failing to correctly report CFs would lead to improved compliance., Methods: Fifty randomly selected reports were reviewed by the chief of neuroradiology each month for 42 months. Errors included (1) not calling for a CF, (2) not identifying a CF as such, (3) mischaracterizing non-CFs as CFs, and (4) calling for non-CFs. The number of appropriately handled and mishandled reports in each month was recorded. The trend of error reduction after the division chief provided feedback in the subsequent months was evaluated, and the equality of time interval between errors was tested., Results: Among 2,100 reports, 49 (2.3%) were handled inappropriately. Among non-CF reports, 98.97% (1,817 of 1,836) were appropriately not called and not flagged, and 88.64% (234 of 264) of CF reports were called and flagged appropriately. The error rate during the 11th through 32nd months of review (1.28%) was significantly lower than the error rate in the first 10 months of review (3.98%) (P = .001). This benefit lasted for 21 months., Conclusions: Review and giving feedback to radiologists increased their compliance with the CF protocol and decreased deviations from standard operating procedures for about 2 years (from month 10 to month 32). Developing new ideas for improving CF policy compliance may be required at 2- to 3-year intervals to provide continuous quality improvement., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Many neuroradiology programs use United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores to assess fellowship candidates. The authors hypothesized that because they are taken several years before fellowship, USMLE scores would correlate poorly with success in fellowship training as measured by faculty evaluations., Methods: USMLE scores from 10 years of neuroradiology fellows (n = 73) were compared with their cumulative mean E*Value scores from their fellowship years and their best-to-worst rankings within their fellowship years. If available, subspecialty certification scores were also factored as an outcome. Linear correlation and regression analyses were performed adjusting for gender, medical school site, and practice setting after fellowship., Results: USMLE Step 1, 2, and 3 scores were available for 69, 64, and 56 fellows, respectively. Fellowship E*Value scores and rankings showed statistically significant (P < .05) correlations with all USMLE scores, but most strongly for Step 1 scores and E*Value grade (r = 0.443) and rank (r = 0.370). The mean USMLE Step 1 score of the top-ranked fellows (234.5) was significantly higher than that of the bottom-ranked fellows (217.7). The correlations of E*Value score and rank with USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores remained after adjusting for gender and American versus foreign medical school, but the medical school site attended also was an independent predictor of fellowship evaluations. Subspecialty certification scores did not show correlations but were underpowered (n = 28)., Conclusions: USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores correlated significantly with success in neuroradiology fellowship, measured by faculty assessments of the six core competencies. Using the scores as a means of assessing candidates for positions is justified., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Physician malpractice expert witnesses may testify on behalf of physicians or patients. The goal of the study was to assess the experience of neuroradiologists as expert witnesses and their attitudes about such testimony., Methods: A survey was distributed to the 4,357 e-mail addresses of the members of the American Society of Neuroradiology with questions about expert witnesses., Results: The survey found that 1,301 of 4,357 answered at least one survey question. Five hundred twenty seven of 1194 (44.1%) of respondents had experience as expert witnesses. Most offer to testify on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendant physicians (324 of 465; 69.7%). Some do not testify/review cases on behalf of a plaintiff because they do not think that physicians should testify against other physicians, even if negligence is a factor (40 of 198; 20.2%). This reason was the most common for not agreeing to be an expert witness for a plaintiff, for all age groups. Of those expressing an opinion, 312 of 874 (35.7%) of neuroradiologists feel negatively about expert witnesses, whereas 434 of 874 (49.6%) say they serve a purpose, and 105 of 874 (12.0%) feel they should be commended for their work on behalf of the justice system., Conclusions: Of neuroradiologists answering the survey, nearly half have served as expert witnesses, and most feel comfortable testifying for both plaintiffs and defendants. Substantive negative perceptions (35.7%) of expert witnesses were found., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the level of support for the proposal to restrict ACGME-accredited fellowships to candidates who completed residencies accredited by the ACGME or the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Perceptions of foreign-trained international medical graduates during and after fellowships were also assessed., Methods: An e-mail survey was sent to the members of the organizations that represent academic chairpersons (the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiology Departments) and radiology residency and fellowship program directors (the Association of Program Directors in Radiology) and to the program directors of the largest American radiology subspecialty society (the American Society of Neuroradiology). Results were analyzed separately for each of the 3 societies interviewed and then as a composite report for all 3 societies., Results: Approximately 60% of the respondents said that they have offered at least one fellowship or faculty position to foreign-trained applicants in the past 5 years. More than 70% of the respondents said that these doctors performed equally to or better than American-trained ones both clinically and academically. The majority of members of all 3 societies responding opposed enactment of the rule, with the American Society of Neuroradiology being the most disapproving. The main concerns of those supporting the new rule were the inhomogeneous and sometimes unknown levels of training of the foreign-trained doctors and the need to favor American graduates. Those opposed were mostly worried about diminishing the quality of fellowship candidates, programs being unable to fill their positions, and a decrease in academic-oriented people., Conclusions: Most respondents opposed the proposed rule. The majority were supportive of foreign-trained physicians continuing their training in the United States., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The aims of this study were to analyze reporting of critical findings among neuroradiologists in a university setting and to revise a list of critical findings reflecting an academic clinical practice as part of a practice quality improvement project., Materials and Methods: Neuroradiologic studies performed between January 1 and February 28, 2011, containing "critical finding" notations were searched. Reports were matched with an institutionally approved list of critical findings. These findings and unlisted items that were labeled critical were analyzed for frequency, clinical severity, and diagnosis category. The list was revised on the basis of frequency and severity results., Results: A total of 12,607 reports contained 871 critical findings, 608 of which (69.8%) matched the preexisting list. One-third of the findings (263 of 871) labeled critical were not found on the list. Facial, spinal, and calvarial fractures (76 of 263 [28.9%]) and neurovascular injuries (38 of 263 [14.4%]) were the most frequent unlisted findings. A revised list encompassed 86.7% of all communicated neuroradiologic critical findings., Conclusions: Clinician-approved and neuroradiologist-approved standardized sets of critical findings can facilitate the communication of important results without "overcalling" and decreasing efficiency. Physician judgment of what constitutes a critical finding supersedes any such list, as clinical scenarios are highly variable from patient to patient. Critical findings lists require intermittent revision to reflect practice patterns and changing incidence of disease. Such a review can constitute a practice quality improvement initiative., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: An increasing portion of imaging studies are performed by nonradiologists, especially for modalities with the highest relative value units. The aim of this study was to examine the trends in neuroradiologic interpretation among radiologists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, and other specialists within the Medicare population., Methods: The number of neuroradiologic studies interpreted by radiologists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, and other specialists in the inpatient, hospital outpatient, and private office settings was determined from the CMS Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files for 1996 to 2010. Studies billed through professional and global charges were aggregated. Utilization rates and utilization rate compound annual growth rates were computed by specialty and by imaging study., Results: In 1996, radiologists interpreted 4,802,490 (93.7%) CMS neuroradiologic procedures, neurologists 77,312 (1.5%), neurosurgeons 9,825 (0.19%), and other specialists 234,423 (4.6%). In 2010, radiologists interpreted 11,476,376 (93.5%) procedures, neurologists 101,172 (0.8%), neurosurgeons 20,697 (0.17%), and other specialists 680,786 (5.5%). Neurology and neurosurgery lost market share at all sites. Radiology's share increased in the inpatient (from 94.8% to 98.7%) and hospital outpatient (from 95% to 98.7%) settings but decreased in the private office setting (from 88.2% to 73.1%). Lost market share was captured by the other CMS specialty categories, including independent diagnostic testing facilities and multidisciplinary groups, many of which included radiologists., Conclusions: There was marked growth (140%) in neuroradiologic studies between 1996 and 2010 in the Medicare patient population. Radiologists' share of the total neuroradiologic interpretations remained unchanged and constituted 93.5% in 2010. Radiology's market share has shown growth in the inpatient and hospital outpatient sectors but not the private office sector, where independent diagnostic testing facilities, multidisciplinary groups, and other specialists have seen increases., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The ACGME recognizes radiology's neuroradiology fellowship programs as the pathway to neuroradiology expertise. Members of the American Society of Neuroimaging have called for the expansion of neuroradiology fellowships for neurologists with informal accreditation through the United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties. The aim of this study was to investigate the number of neuroradiologic studies read by neurologists to assess their capacity to support fellowship positions at ACGME training criteria., Methods: The numbers of neuroradiologic studies interpreted by radiologists and neurologists in the inpatient and hospital outpatient settings were determined from the CMS Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files for 1996 to 2008. The ACGME requirements of 1,500 neuroradiologic CT and 1,500 neuroradiologic MR scans per fellow per year were used to calculate the number of fellowship positions that could be supported by each specialty., Results: In 2008, in the inpatient and hospital outpatient setting, radiologists interpreted 9,287,768 (98.3% of the total) and neurologists interpreted 43,107 (0.5% of the total) neuroradiologic examinations on Medicare patients. Per ACGME requirements, on the basis of CT volumes, radiologists could potentially train 4,256 neuroradiology fellows, compared with neurologists' 12 fellows, assuming a single fellow was exposed to every Medicare case. On the basis of MR volumes, radiologists and neurologists could train 1,935 and 16 fellows, respectively., Conclusions: Radiologists are responsible for interpreting the vast majority (98.3%) of neuroradiologic studies. Neurologists have a limited exposure to neuroradiologic CT and MR and could support only 12 fellowship positions by ACGME criteria on the basis of reading available 1996 to 2008 Medicare cases., (Copyright © 2011 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: The selection of neuroradiology fellows who will start on July 1, 2005, marked the fourth year in which program directors in neuroradiology used the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) as the selection modality. The aim of this study was to investigate fellowship candidates' views regarding the match process., Methods: A Web survey was distributed electronically to all candidates applying for neuroradiology fellowship positions offered for the July 1, 2005, start date, with questions about the match. One hundred thirteen neuroradiology fellowship candidates responded to the survey, representing 73.9% of the surveyed fellowship pool. Candidates were also allowed to enter their comments regarding the match process via the Web survey., Results: Of the 113 neuroradiology fellowship candidates responding, 75.7% felt that the NRMP system was fair, 86.0% were satisfied with the outcome, 88.8% had matched with one of their top three choices, 54.5% recommended continuing the neuroradiology fellowship match, and 15.5% stated that they experienced violations of the match rules. The main perceived advantages of the match from the candidates' perspectives were the ability to see many programs and explore multiple options, the perception of fairness, and the efficiency of using the match program. The main disadvantages were the cost of applications and traveling, the number of days required to interview, and the perception that the match program favors internal candidates., Conclusion: The majority of fellowship candidates felt that the match system for selection is a fair process and were satisfied with the outcome. However, the perceived disadvantages produced tepid (54.5%) support for the continuation of the match. Program directors in neuroradiology and other radiologic subspecialties should consider the data provided in this article in deciding the future selection process.