ArticleNursing open2020
Patients' and radiographers' experiences of dose reducing abdominal compression in radiographic examinations-A qualitative study.
Article in Nursing open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To describe patients' and radiographers' experiences of abdominal compression using conventional and patient-controlled compression methods. Design: Qualitative descriptive design. Methods: Forty-five patients who had used both a conventional and a patient-controlled compression device answered questionnaires. Five radiographers were interviewed. The data-collection took place between September 2015 and February 2017. Data were analysed by qualitative content analysis. Results: Patient-controlled compression was preferred by slightly more patients because of fear of pain due to excessively hard pressure, maintaining control over the pressure and shorter duration. It was more comfortable, and patients felt they could participate in the examinations. Conventional compression was preferred by some because of more stable pressure and uncertainty of own capacity to provide the optimal compression. Discomfort was more often mentioned concerning the conventional compression method. The radiographers experienced the patient-controlled method as less time-consuming and more comfortable, but uncertainty about correct compression technique and its effect on radiation dose and image quality was reported.
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.