| Title |
Overview of the radiographers’ practice in 65 healthcare centers using digital mammography systems in Portugal
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-017-0550-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cláudia Sá dos Reis, Ana Pascoal, Lucian Radu, Mário Fartaria de Oliveira, João Alves |
| Abstract |
To assess current practices in digital mammography (DM) in Portuguese healthcare providers using digital systems. To investigate compliance with European standards regarding mean glandular dose and quality control practice and to identify optimisation needs. Two questionnaires, targeted at breast radiographers and chief radiographers, were designed and applied in 65 imaging departments offering DM. Questions fielded were focused on the staff profile and technical/clinical practice. Prior to starting their activity in DM, 70% (82 out of 118) of the respondents received training in DM. The practice in 29 out of 59 providers was established by the manufacturers' recommendations for image acquisition. Variations were observed between radiographers who belong to the same provider namely the selection of exposure parameters such as the target-filter combination and automatic mode. The use of the manual exposure mode was reported for imaging breast implants (44%) and surgical specimens (22%). The main causes of repeat examinations were skin folding (21%) and absence of pectoral muscle (PM) (20%). The study revealed opportunities to optimise radiographers' practice in DM regarding the selection of exposure parameters. A robust and consistent training programme in DM and established local protocols can help to reduce the variations observed and improve clinical practice. • Radiographers adopted different practices selecting AEC modes and T/F combinations. • Radiographer practice is more consistent using DR than using CR systems. • The main causes for rejecting images were the visibility of skin folding and PM absence. • Radiographers were partly unaware of the dose indicator. • Radiographers' training needs: QC, interventional procedures and breast dose optimisation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Professor | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 19 | 61% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 21 | 68% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 June 2017.
All research outputs
#16,454,538
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#729
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,411
of 312,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#10
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,086 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.