↓ Skip to main content

Collaboration, campaigns and champions for appropriate imaging: feedback from the Zagreb workshop

Overview of attention for article published in Insights into Imaging, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Collaboration, campaigns and champions for appropriate imaging: feedback from the Zagreb workshop
Published in
Insights into Imaging, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13244-018-0602-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

D. Remedios, B. Brkljacic, S. Ebdon-Jackson, M. Hierath, V. Sinitsyn, J. Vassileva

Abstract

Leading radiologists and representatives from national radiation protection regulatory authorities and health ministries from 19 countries of the European region worked together with five experts at the workshop on justification and appropriate use of imaging in Zagreb, Croatia, from 26 to 28 October 2017 jointly organised by the IAEA and the European Society of Radiology. The workshop served as a forum to exchange information on challenges and solutions for improving justification and the appropriate use of diagnostic imaging. Common barriers to improving the use of imaging referral guidelines were discussed and the need for increased collaboration identified. Examples of good practices were presented, including use of Clinical Decision Support (CDS) systems to facilitate rapid and good justification decisions. The workshop identified some of the needs of European countries for achieving more appropriate imaging proposing wider use of collaboration, campaigns and champions. • Drivers for appropriate imaging in Europe are similar to those elsewhere globally. • Implementing imaging referral guidelines is the main barrier to more appropriate imaging. • Clinical Decision Support systems (CDS) facilitates good referral practice and justification decisions. • Collaboration, campaigns and champions may improve awareness, appropriateness and audit.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 20%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 27%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 7%
Unknown 5 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 March 2018.
All research outputs
#19,702,729
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#847
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,708
of 336,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#28
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 336,295 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.