Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25164546›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2014

Radiation knowledge and perception of referral practice among radiologists and radiographers compared with referring clinicians.

Lars Borgen, Erling Stranden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Assessment of radiographers' knowledge about radiation doses and DRLs in computed tomography departments in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lars BorgenDepartment of Radiology, Drammen Hospital, Dronning gaten 28, 3004, Drammen, Norway, lars.borgen@vestreviken.no.
Erling Stranden

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore if the perception of radiologists and radiographers on referral practice differs from that of referring clinicians, and to see if knowledge of radiation issues and referral guidelines differ between these groups.

methodsA questionnaire was handed out to 46 radiologists and 36 radiographers in Norway. Findings were compared to corresponding results from a similar already published study on clinicians. Questions dealt with referrals unlikely to affect treatment as well as respondents' radiation and referral guideline knowledge.

resultsRadiographers estimated the highest proportion of referrals most unlikely to affect treatment (median 20 %) in comparison to radiologists (10 %) and clinicians (5 %). Lack of time, compensating for limited clinical examination and patient expectations were rated as more important reasons for such referrals by radiologists than by clinicians. Radiologists and radiographers possessed significantly better radiation knowledge than clinicians, and were more familiar with referral guidelines.

conclusionsThe perception of radiologists and radiographers differs from that of clinicians, concerning the use of imaging most unlikely to affect treatment, and the reasons for such referrals. Radiologists and radiographers possess better radiation knowledge than referring clinicians, but all groups have a potential in improving their radiation protection knowledge. MAIN MESSAGES: • Radiographers estimated the highest proportion of referrals most unlikely to affect treatment. • Radiologists rated "getting the patient discharged" as an important reason for such referrals. • Radiologists and radiographers possess significantly better radiation knowledge than clinicians.

Identifiers

PMID25164546
PMCPMC4195837

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.