Search

Background Congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) is the most common infectious cause of neurodevelopmental deficits in US children. To inform patient management, it is important to define whether central nervous system (CNS) manifestations are present at birth. This study characterized neuroimaging findings in infants with cCMV identified by a universal screening study in Minnesota during February 2016–December 2022. Methods Newborns with cCMV infection (confirmed by urine CMV polymerase chain reaction [PCR] testing, obtained following a positive screening saliva and/or dried blood spot result) underwent a diagnostic evaluation that included a cranial ultrasound (cUS) exam, laboratory studies, ophthalmological, and audiological evaluation. Neuroimaging findings and cCMV disease classification were interpreted based on international consensus guidelines. Results Among 87 newborns with confirmed cCMV, 76 underwent cUS. Of these, 53/76 (70%) had normal examinations, while 23/76 (30%) exhibited cUS findings: for 5 infants, these were clearly cCMV disease-defining, while for 18 infants, there were findings of uncertain significance. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results (n  = 10 infants) aligned with cUS cCMV disease-defining findings in 2 infants, while cCMV-specific abnormalities were noted by MRI in 2 of 6 infants with nondiagnostic/incidental cUS findings. Of 9 infants who had both cUS and MRI examination, the average time interval between studies was 220 days (range, 2–1061). Excluding infants with cCMV CNS disease-defining cUS abnormalities, incidental findings were observed more commonly in infants with clinical/laboratory features described in cCMV disease classification guidelines (9/13) than in newborns with completely asymptomatic infections (9/58; P  < .0001). Conclusions Among infants with cCMV identified in a universal screening study, the majority had a normal cUS. CNS disease-defining abnormalities were present in 7%, while 24% had findings of uncertain significance. We propose that many cUS findings are incidental, and not diagnostic of symptomatic cCMV infection. Although these findings may not be sufficient to define the presence of symptomatic cCMV disease involving the CNS, in our study they were more commonly observed in infants with other clinical and/or laboratory findings associated with symptomatic cCMV infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale and Objectives: The Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) administers an annual survey to assess issues and experiences related to residency program management and education. Our purpose is to provide the response data from the 2023 survey and discuss its insights on the impact of COVID-19 on resident recruitment (Part I) and education (Part II), which can be used to facilitate planning and resource allocation for the evolving needs of programs and their leadership. In Part I, we consider the effects of ERAS preference signaling, the virtual interview format, and the potential of a universal interview release date., Materials and Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study of the APDR membership was performed using a web-based survey consisting of 45 questions, 23 of which pertain to virtual recruitment and are discussed in Part I of a two-part survey analysis. All active APDR members (n = 393) were invited to participate in the survey., Results: The response rate was 32% (124 of 393). 83% reported that signaling increased the likelihood of an interview offer. 96% reported only offering virtual interviews; however, 59% intended to offer virtual-only interviews in the future. 53% would adhere to a universal interview release date but an additional 44% would do so depending on the agreed date, Results were tallied using Qualtrics software and qualitative responses were tabulated or summarized as comments., Conclusions: Virtual recruitment is expected to continue for many programs and most respondents would accept a universal interview release date. Preference signaling and geographic signaling are considered positive additions to the application process., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Brent D. Griffith reports a relationship with Association of Program Directors in Radiology that includes: board membership. Carolynn M. DeBenedectis reports a relationship with Association of Program Directors in Radiology that includes: board membership. Priscilla J. Slanetz reports a relationship with Association of Academic Radiology that includes: board membership. Priscilla J. Slanetz is a board member of the AAR Research and Education Fund and ACR Board of Chancellors, and Member of the Editorial Boards of Radiology and Academic Radiology. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale and Objectives: The Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) administers an annual survey to assess issues and experiences related to residency program management and education. Response data from the 2023 survey provides insights on the impact of COVID-19 on resident recruitment (Part I) and education (Part II), which can be used to facilitate planning and resource allocation for the evolving needs of programs and their leadership., Materials and Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study of the APDR membership was performed using a web-based survey consisting of 45 questions, 12 of which pertain to resident education in the post-pandemic era and are discussed in Part II of a two-part survey analysis. All active APDR members (n = 393) were invited to participate in the survey., Results: The response rate was 32% (124 of 393). Results were tallied using Qualtrics software and qualitative responses were tabulated or summarized as comments., Conclusions: The primary challenges to resident education are faculty burnout, rising case volumes, and remote instruction. However, most program leaders report that in-person readouts are much more common than remote readouts. The ability to offer both in-person and remote AIRP sessions is viewed positively. Most program leaders require Authorized User certification, although many do not think all residents need it. Assessment of procedural competence varies by the type of procedure and is similar to graduates' self-assessment of competence., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Brent D. Griffith reports a relationship with Association of Program Directors in Radiology that includes: board membership. Carolynn M. DeBenedectis reports a relationship with Association of Program Directors in Radiology that includes: board membership. Priscilla J. Slanetz reports a relationship with Association of Academic Radiology that includes: board membership. Priscilla J. Slanetz is a board member of the AAR Research and Education Fund and ACR Board of Chancellors, and Member of the Editorial Boards of Radiology and Academic Radiology. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)