Kathy S. Thomas, MHA, CNMT, PET, FSNMMI-TS
I would like to begin this editorial by thanking the 841 nuclear medicine professionals willing to take time from their busy lives to complete the JNMT survey. So why is this survey so important? Because nuclear medicine and molecular imaging continues to change and evolve, and content in JNMT needs to support that evolution by sustaining and enhancing professional growth for all readers.
I began my term as JNMT Editor by making a few immediate changes to JNMT’s content without the benefit of input from its readers. Moving forward, I knew it was important to assess the value of that new content as well as to ask the readers simple questions, ‘What do you like/dislike in JNMT and how can your journal be improved?’ Thanks to the 841 nuclear medicine professionals willing to share their ideas, comments, and suggestions, I now have a better understanding of what is relevant and where improvements can be made. In this discussion, I will share the major points of the survey with the promise of a more detailed discussion in my next editorial.
I was encouraged to see that the survey was completed by a wide variety readers including technologists (614), supervisors (93), administrators (50), educators (77), students (30), scientists (17) physicians (5), industry representatives (19), medical student (1), resident/fellow (1), and other (75), reflecting additional professional positions. Experience in the field ranged from students entering the field with no experience to the veterans who cite as many as 49 years.
I was not surprised to find that no one has the time to read every issue. Readers primarily skimmed each issue or occasionally look through an issue and read what is interesting. Let’s face it, there are just so many hours in each day and work, family, friends, and outside activities take up a great deal of that time. The important message from this question—keep content relevant and interesting!
When I review what readers choose to read, again, there were no real surprises. Continuing Education ranked top of the list. I was encouraged to find that the new addition Practical Protocol Tips was also valued, with more than 80% of the readers noting that it was extremely important or very important. Unfortunately, responses were not associated with profession; but 76 respondents felt that the other new section, Educators’ Forum, was extremely important and given that we had 77 educators responding, I’m choosing to believe that the new section is benefiting their professional needs. Teaching cases also scored high. These cases are directly related to unusual image findings and continue to be valued. Scientific research provides us with new clinical research in imaging, radiopharmaceuticals, and instrumentation. Readers felt that scientific research was important, but we received many comments regarding the need for more relevant research in the technical aspects of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging.
Because we received the survey results so close to the deadline for this editorial, I won’t be able to address all the comments and suggestions and will save that for the September issue; however, there are some important points to be made.
First—without exception, readers love the number of CE articles that have recently been published. Thanks to the continued efforts of CE Editor Mary Beth Farrell and the dedication of so many technologist authors, we have been successful in publishing 3 CE articles in each issue in 2018, and that number is anticipated to continue through 2019. Future issues rely on the submissions, so please consider sharing your expertise by writing a CE article for JNMT.
Exam complexity for JNM and JNMT was a recurring topic on the survey and recently discussed in the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) Community Digest. Members want tests associated with CE articles to support the learning process. Tricky questions or questions that require knowledge outside the content of the article do nothing but cause frustration and cause members to seek CE credits from outside the SNMMI. Thanks to that discussion on the Community Digest, significant changes have been made. Test questions, written by the manuscript’s author, are now reviewed and revised as necessary, by two technologists prior to publication. In the testing software, incorrect answers are now flagged in red. This allows the reader to know what area of the article requires further review. Additionally, in response to the complexity of JNM test questions, a separate technologist exam will be offered. The technologist test for JNM will follow the same format as the JNMT exam; questions will refer directly to content with no reliance on reference review or knowledge outside the manuscript’s content.
The question regarding interest in Practical Pointers had an overwhelming ‘YES’! It supports the many requests for more topics specific to technology. Based on that request, September will offer at least one Practical Pointer that will provide concise answers to questions associated with a single topic, ‘What is it?’ and ‘Why is it important?’
I will share the remaining results of the survey in my September editorial, including the many suggested topics (almost as many as the number completing the survey…almost!), research participation, and the possibility of becoming a JNMT author with the help and support of a mentor.
In this issue of JNMT, three excellent continuing education articles are presented. Geoffrey Currie (1) continues his excellent pharmacology series by focusing on nuclear cardiology. Julie Bolin (2) shares integrative leadership techniques to provide excellent patient care while overcoming hospital challenges. The final CE article is taken from the recently published SNMMI Gastrointestinal Minibook. This article, written by Mary Beth Farrell (3), launches this issue’s main topic of discussion, gastric emptying scintigraphy.
There has been a great deal of discussion recently on the SNMMI Community Digest regarding gastric emptying scintigraphy, specifically meal preparation and alternative meals. Several articles in this issue address this topic, including Dr. Perry Orthey’s (4) article and Dr. Patrick Colletti’s (5) Invited Perspective on antral contractility for enhanced gastric emptying scintigraphy. Additional discussions include egg preparation (6) and egg radiolabeling efficiency (7). The Practical Protocol Tip provides a concise summary of gastric empty scintigraphy.
For educators and technologists, there are several topics of interest presented, including a discussion on Lifelong Learning, the use of professional development in career advancement, and the reliability of a patient’s self-reported weight.
Additionally, there are a number of thought-provoking discussions on a variety of topics, including 18F-FDG in sentinel lymph node imaging in breast cancer, amplitude-based respiratory-gated PET, the use of urinary voiding to reduce radiation exposure, and the application of imaging to assess noninfectious complications in peritoneal dialysis.
Finally, don’t forget to see the latest Teaching Case Studies, which offer interesting findings in gastrointestinal bleeding and the successful theranostic application of 68Ga/177Lu-Dotate.
As we prepare for the SNMMI annual meeting in Anaheim, CA, many readers may be looking for the technologist abstracts that have been historically included in this issue. Thanks to the advancement of modern technology, all abstracts are now available online, allowing you to print only those of interest. This process was successfully implemented for physician/scientist abstracts a number of years ago and now includes all abstracts presented at the annual meeting.
Mark your calendars! There will be two sessions offered on Monday afternoon at the annual meeting to assist abstract authors develop their information into a scientific manuscript or brief communication. Please join Mary Beth Farrell and me for these informative sessions as we demonstrate how easy it is to share your expertise with the nuclear medicine community by publishing your research in JNMT.
Finally, and as promised in my first editorial (my continuous ‘nag’ to all)…please consider sharing your expertise by becoming a reviewer for JNMT. The peer-review process helps to maintain the quality of JNMT; however, that process is only as good as the volunteers willing to share their own expertise by becoming a JNMT reviewer. If you are interested in becoming a reviewer for JNMT, please visit the JNMT manuscript submission website (https://submit-jnm.snmjournals.org/) or contact me (ksthomas0412{at}msn.com).
As always, I value your comments and encourage you to contact me with any helpful suggestions to support the JNMT.
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.