ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2025
Radiography students' knowledge, attitude and practice relating to infection prevention and control in the use of contrast media injectors in computed tomography.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Standardising infection control in CT intravenous contrast practice: an eDelphi study.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Investigating computed tomography radiographers' expertise in responding to severe contrast media reactions: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRadiography students complete professional placements in various clinical settings and must adhere to distinct infection prevention and control (IPC) protocols. The aim of this study was to explore radiography students' training, knowledge, attitudes, and practice (KAP) relating to IPC in the use of contrast media injectors in computed tomography (CT).
methodsAn online survey study was undertaken with radiography students enrolled at two Australian universities. Survey questions related to contrast media training and KAP regarding IPC in CT. Data was summarised using descriptive statistics, with comparisons between experience in public and private practice. One free-text response question focused on non-adherence to IPC best practice, analysed using content analysis.
resultsIn total, 40 students completed the survey (9% response rate). Reports of IPC and contrast media equipment training was high, with disposition for further training. Regarding IPC knowledge, 65% of students responded correctly to all 'knowledge' items (individual scores range: 60-100%). Low consensus was observed regarding whether gloves replace the need for hand hygiene and if CT contrast tubing poses risk to healthcare workers (85% each). Mean scores ranged from 41% to 100% regarding identification of sterile syringe and tubing components. Responses to the open-ended question were categorised into four themes: 'High non-adherence risk working conditions', 'attitudes and practice', 'knowledge', and 'prioritise good IPC practice'.
conclusionsRadiography students demonstrate varied comprehension of IPC regarding contrast media equipment, and results suggest need for collaborative efforts between academic institutions and clinical training sites to integrate IPC protocols into curricula and on-site training.
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.