waitingherefornothingtocome:

X Ray of a Gibson Les Paul  

theviewbox:

Got the latest issue of the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences in the mail. I find this journal is very therapy dominated. In this issue, out of 6 articles, 5 are therapy and 1 is diagnostic/therapy. The 1 diagnostic/therapy article is:

SNAITH BA 2013 “Peer-review publication patterns: A comparison of international radiography journals” Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 18(1) pp 37-43

The author looked at 4 radiography journals, The Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences (Canada), Radiography (UK), The South African Radiographer, and The Radiographer (Australia). 

I hadn’t previously read anything from The Radiographer so I searched for it online to have a look-see. According to their website (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jmrs.2013.60.issue-1/issuetoc) the journal has just partnered with the New Zealand journal, Shadows, to form a new journal, the Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences. The first issue was published just this month.

Anyway, back to Snaith (2012). The aim of the paper was to “review the radiography profession in terms of [its] publications to explore the evidence base and identify its evolution internationally”.

The article confirms my accusation that the JMIRS is mostly therapy articles. Both the JMIRS and The Radiographer had more therapy than diagnostic articles in the 8-year period but overall, the 4 journals had more diagnostic articles than therapy. The author found that Radiography had the most international authors. And, over time, all journals had fewer articles by a single author and more international authors.

It is also interesting that the author, a UK based radiographer, chose to publish the article in a Canadian journal, therefore increasing the internationality of the JMIRS.

I think these metrics all demonstrate a growth of research being performed in our profession. However, it doesn’t demonstrate an increase of the use of research in practice. It seems like many articles I read speak to how most of radiography practice isn’t based on research. In fact, in a recent response to a letter to the editor in Radiography, the authors wrote: “In many areas conventional radiographic practice is still based on techniques developed for film-screen with little or no formal evidence base” (Manning-Stanley et al, 2013).

References 

Manning-Stanley AS, Ward AJ, England A 2012 “Response to: ‘Considerations for AEC selection in radiography of the pelvis’” Radiography, In Press.

SNAITH BA 2013 “Peer-review publication patterns: A comparison of international radiography journals” Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 18(1) pp 37-43

I received this too, and noticed that very fact.

Don’t forget that the JMIRS (and The Radiographer) is not indexed, nor adequately peer-reviewed so as to warrant much interest in being published in it by several members of our professions.

Most researcher’s interested in publishing papers etc will look beyond the Radiographer.

(Source: basic417)

iwannabeadoctornow:

medicalstate:

Foreign Body Rectal Obstruction.

I looked the woman at the ER desk dead in the eye and said, “There is no other way to put this. I have a vibrating dildo inside my ass.”

And so began a terribly tale of a man going to the hospital to remove this object. Sparing no expense, the man tweets his predicament live to the world. 

Four people tried to listen to my chest with a stethoscope. “Wait what’s that sound?” “I-it’s still on.”

Too much information here.

Not quite how they were expecting that to go eh?

It’s unfortunate the number of times this actually does present in an emergency department.

radiologysigns:

QUIZ: Three children with elbow pain after falling. Are any normal? Are any dislocated? Click to Play VIDEO ANSWER

blue-girl1990:

The Value of Good Inspiration - PA

This patient has increased opacity in both lung bases. The difficulty with this image is that it is difficult to know how much of the basal opacity is due to crowding of lung structures and how much is pathological.

The problem can be technique related. There can be a tendency for radiographers to ask the patient to “breathe in and hold your breath” without actually watching the patient to see when they have completed their inspiratory effort. Don’t “kick in the autopilot” when giving the patient breathing instructions- watch what the patient is doing.