| Title |
Ergonomic strategies to improve radiographers’ posture during mammography activities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-017-0560-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicolai Cernean, Florentino Serranheira, Pedro Gonçalves, Cláudia Sá dos Reis |
| Abstract |
To identify alternatives for radiographers' postures while performing mammography that can contribute to reduce the risk of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSDs). Radiographers' postures to positioning craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views were simulated without any intervention for three scenarios: radiographer/patient with similar statures, radiographer smaller than patient and radiographer taller than patient. Actions were taken to modify the postures: seated radiographer; patient on a step; seated patient; radiographer on a step. All the postures were analysed using kinovea 0.8.15 software and the angles were measured twice and classified according to European standard EN1005-4: 2005. The non-acceptable angles were measured mainly during MLO positioning when radiographer was taller than the patient: 139° and 120° for arm-flexion and abduction, 72° for trunk and -24° for head/neck-flexion. The introduction of alternative postures (radiographer seated), allowed improvements in posture (60° and 99° for arm flexion and abduction, 14° for trunk and 0° for head/neck flexion), being classified as acceptable. The alternative postures simulated have the potential to reduce the risk of developing WRMSDs when radiographers and patients have different statures. • Radiographers' postures in mammography can contribute to work-related musculoskeletal disorders • Non-acceptable posture was identified for MLO breast positioning (radiographer taller than patient) • Adapting posture to patient biotype reduces the WRMSD risk for radiographers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 24% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 16% |
| Engineering | 5 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 25 | 49% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 March 2022.
All research outputs
#7,733,001
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#459
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,262
of 320,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
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 320,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.