Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34496140›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2022

Understanding radiographic decision-making when imaging obese patients: A Think-Aloud study.

Grace Seo, John Robinson, Amanda Punch, Yobelli Jimenez, Sarah Lewis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Imaging patients with obesity.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Grace SeoDiscipline of Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, City Road, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
John RobinsonDiscipline of Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, City Road, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Amanda PunchDiscipline of Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, City Road, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Yobelli JimenezDiscipline of Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, City Road, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Sarah LewisDiscipline of Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, City Road, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe incidence of obesity has been steadily rising over the last few decades and is having a significant impact upon the health system. In radiography, a particular challenge of imaging obese patients is implementing the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle when determining radiation dose, and technical and patient-care adaptations. This study aimed to better understand the decision-making strategies of experienced radiographers in determining imaging and exposure factor selection in the context of imaging obese patients.

methodsThis study employed a 'think-aloud,' methodology, and eight experienced diagnostic radiographers working in clinical education were recruited to perform routine AP abdominal X-ray projections on an anthropomorphic phantom. They were asked to simultaneously verbalise emerging thoughts as they considered positioning, exposure selection and image evaluation. This process was repeated with three different phantom sizes, each representing an increased BMI from 'healthy,' to, 'morbidly obese.' Audio recordings were transcribed and interpreted via Bowman's (1997) theory of radiographic judgement and decision-making.

resultsAnalysis of interview transcripts identified 12 key concepts considered by experienced radiographers. Differences in radiographic concepts were considered when imaging phantoms of different sizes was demonstrated. A shift from segmental (e.g. positioning) to more environmental factors (e.g. patient comfort) and an increase in the number of verbal considerations with increasing phantom size were identified. The shift in focus of decision-making stages identified the greater need to consider contextual factors such as patient comfort and repeatability when imaging obese patients.

conclusionExperienced radiographers find imaging obese patients challenging and alter their perception of image quality to accommodate for patient presentation. The findings will help inform future research, practice guidelines and learning resources to provide optimal imaging and care for obese patients, especially for student education.

Indexed as

Obesity, MorbidHumansPhantoms, ImagingRadiation DosageRadiography, Abdominaladaptive techniqueeducationobesityobesity decision-makingradiography

Identifiers

PMID34496140
PMCPMC8892425
OpenAlexW3198077733

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.