ArticleRadiography (London, England : 1995)2020
Evidence-based radiography: A new methodology or the systematisation of an old practice?
Article in Radiography (London, England : 1995), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping the future: The current landscape and future directions of evidence-based practice in Saudi radiology departments.PloS one · 2025Article
- Survey of research attitudes of RTTs working in Scotland: A Scottish radiographer research forum collaboration.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Radiographic technique modification and evidence-based practice: A qualitative study.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2023Article
- The barriers, motives, perceptions, and attitudes toward research among radiology practitioners and interns in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Identification of research priorities of radiography science: A modified Delphi study in Europe.Nursing & health sciences · 2022Article
- Re: Abrantes et al. 'evidence-based radiography: A new methodology or the systematisation of an old practice?' and Michele et al. 'knowledge translation: Radiographers compared to other healthcare professionals'.Radiography (London, England : 1995) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEvidence based radiography (EBR) is the logical development of evidence based practice applied to radiography. The aim of this study was to investigate the opinion of a cohort of Portuguese radiographers in Southern Portugal working in public hospitals regarding evidence based practice (EBP), namely about the levels of knowledge about EBR, how they access information and how they use it within daily practice.
methodsA self-administered questionnaire was applied to a sample of 40 radiographers in the Portuguese region of Algarve. This questionnaire was validated for Portuguese speakers using the translation-retranslation method.
resultsThe final response rate was 69% (40/58). Results suggest that most radiographers trained EBR during their undergraduate training. Although, no statistically significant correlations were found in the practice of EBR against participant gender, age, training, career level, reading papers and workplace. The most frequent reason to read papers is the "interest" to do so, and national professional journals are read more often. It was found that radiographers that read scientific papers more frequently know more about research (p = 0.005), understand the importance of research for the professional activity (p = 0.023), and know more on how to conduct research papers (p = 0.034).
conclusionEBR within radiography is not yet well established, and radiographers' have varying viewpoints. Radiographers that read scientific papers more frequently understand better the philosophy behind this concept but it is very important to deepen the knowledge on this area. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: When practicing radiography based on the best available scientific knowledge, professionals are ensuring the best for patients and for profession. To achieve this, and before taking any action, it is important to evaluate the current situation, and this research presents a way to do so.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.