This brief overview of the current state of clinician performed focused ultrasound (Emergency PoCUS) by emergency practitioners in Australia/New Zealand (ANZ) has touched on its history, scope of practice both mandated and context-dependent, complex embedding in clinical diagnostic reasoning and range of governance issues. It is the author's hope that an ongoing understanding and interplay between the three professional groups most closely involved in the use of ultrasound to improve patient care and health-care flow can continue to work closely together for the ultimate benefit of patients in multiple contexts in ANZ and beyond.
{"title":"Point-Of-Care Ultrasound in Emergency Departments in Australia/New Zealand: An Emergency Physician's Perspective","authors":"Robyn Brady","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.871","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.871","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This brief overview of the current state of clinician performed focused ultrasound (Emergency PoCUS) by emergency practitioners in Australia/New Zealand (ANZ) has touched on its history, scope of practice both mandated and context-dependent, complex embedding in clinical diagnostic reasoning and range of governance issues. It is the author's hope that an ongoing understanding and interplay between the three professional groups most closely involved in the use of ultrasound to improve patient care and health-care flow can continue to work closely together for the ultimate benefit of patients in multiple contexts in ANZ and beyond.\u0000 <figure>\u0000 <div><picture>\u0000 <source></source></picture><p></p>\u0000 </div>\u0000 </figure></p>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"72 1","pages":"3-7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.871","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143557103","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Dalia Dinham, Sasha Faggotter, Emma Boughen, Hannah Bonaventura, Elaine Ryan
Introduction: Positioning aids are frequently used in image guided surgery (IGS). This study evaluates the impact of positioning aids on radiation dose and image quality (IQ) in IGS and the potential for dose optimised imaging via the choice of positioning aid type selected for clinical use.
Methods: Foam and gel positioning aids were evaluated in this study. Anthropomorphic phantoms were used to simulate clinically relevant procedures. Patient and staff radiation exposure were estimated via incident air kerma rate and scatter dose rate measurements, respectively. Perspex phantoms were used to assess the impact of the positioning aid location within the field of view (FOV) on radiation dose, via the reference entrance point air kerma rate displayed on the C-arm. IQ was analysed objectively via contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measurements.
Results: An average dose rate reduction of 24% and 27% were measured for the simulated patient and surgeon locations, respectively, when gel was replaced with foam, over all anthropomorphic phantom sizes and procedures. A maximum increase in dose rate of 3% for foam and 57% for gel were calculated with a change in positioning aid location within the FOV. In most instances, an improvement in CNR and SNR was observed with the replacement of gel with foam positioning aids.
Conclusion: The present study demonstrates that the choice of positioning aids used in IGS can significantly impact radiation dose and IQ. With collaboration between radiographers and the perioperative team, it is recommended sites optimise their selection of positioning aids in IGS.
{"title":"Your C-Arm May Be Dose Optimised but Is Your Surgical Procedure? The Evaluation and Dose Optimisation of Positioning Aids Used in Paediatric Image Guided Surgery.","authors":"Dalia Dinham, Sasha Faggotter, Emma Boughen, Hannah Bonaventura, Elaine Ryan","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.869","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.869","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Positioning aids are frequently used in image guided surgery (IGS). This study evaluates the impact of positioning aids on radiation dose and image quality (IQ) in IGS and the potential for dose optimised imaging via the choice of positioning aid type selected for clinical use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Foam and gel positioning aids were evaluated in this study. Anthropomorphic phantoms were used to simulate clinically relevant procedures. Patient and staff radiation exposure were estimated via incident air kerma rate and scatter dose rate measurements, respectively. Perspex phantoms were used to assess the impact of the positioning aid location within the field of view (FOV) on radiation dose, via the reference entrance point air kerma rate displayed on the C-arm. IQ was analysed objectively via contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measurements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An average dose rate reduction of 24% and 27% were measured for the simulated patient and surgeon locations, respectively, when gel was replaced with foam, over all anthropomorphic phantom sizes and procedures. A maximum increase in dose rate of 3% for foam and 57% for gel were calculated with a change in positioning aid location within the FOV. In most instances, an improvement in CNR and SNR was observed with the replacement of gel with foam positioning aids.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The present study demonstrates that the choice of positioning aids used in IGS can significantly impact radiation dose and IQ. With collaboration between radiographers and the perioperative team, it is recommended sites optimise their selection of positioning aids in IGS.</p>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143557148","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<div> <section> <h3> Introduction</h3> <p>Radiation safety is critical in medical settings where ionising radiation is routinely used. Traditional didactic training methods often fail to provide the practical skills needed for effective safety protocol implementation. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR)-based radiation safety training with traditional didactic methods in reducing radiation exposure among medical professionals. Secondary objectives included assessing participant satisfaction, engagement and confidence in applying radiation safety practices.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Methods</h3> <p>A 2-year randomised crossover trial was conducted with 39 medical professionals from cardiac catheterization laboratories and orthopaedic theatres. Group A received VR training in Year 1 and didactic training in Year 2, while Group B received the reverse. Radiation exposure was measured using Landauer Vision dosimeters. Participant feedback on satisfaction, engagement and confidence was collected through surveys. Data were analysed using paired <i>t</i>-tests, generalised estimating equations and non-parametric tests.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Results</h3> <p>VR training significantly reduced radiation exposure compared to didactic training, with larger effect sizes per hour of training. Group A showed significant reductions during Year 1 when they received VR training (Year 2: didactic training), while Group B exhibited similar reductions during Year 2 when they underwent VR training (Year 1: didactic training). Group A, which received VR training in Year 1 followed by didactic training in Year 2, showed significant reductions in radiation exposure during Year 1. Group B, which received didactic training in Year 1 followed by VR training in Year 2, exhibited similar reductions during Year 2. Participant satisfaction and engagement were higher with VR training (<i>p</i> < 0.001), and confidence in applying safety practices increased significantly following VR training (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Group A reported these improvements after VR training in Year 1, while Group B experienced similar benefits after VR training in Year 2. Group A reported these improvements after VR training in Year 1, while Group B experienced similar benefits after VR training in Year 2.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Conclusion</h3> <p>The RadSafe VR Program is more effective than traditional didactic training in reducing radiation exposure among medical professionals. VR training enhances radiation safety practices, improves participant s
{"title":"Comparative Effectiveness of Immersive Virtual Reality and Traditional Didactic Training on Radiation Safety in Medical Professionals: A Crossover Study","authors":"Wanjiku Mwangi, Yuki Tanaka","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.867","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.867","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Radiation safety is critical in medical settings where ionising radiation is routinely used. Traditional didactic training methods often fail to provide the practical skills needed for effective safety protocol implementation. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR)-based radiation safety training with traditional didactic methods in reducing radiation exposure among medical professionals. Secondary objectives included assessing participant satisfaction, engagement and confidence in applying radiation safety practices.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A 2-year randomised crossover trial was conducted with 39 medical professionals from cardiac catheterization laboratories and orthopaedic theatres. Group A received VR training in Year 1 and didactic training in Year 2, while Group B received the reverse. Radiation exposure was measured using Landauer Vision dosimeters. Participant feedback on satisfaction, engagement and confidence was collected through surveys. Data were analysed using paired <i>t</i>-tests, generalised estimating equations and non-parametric tests.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>VR training significantly reduced radiation exposure compared to didactic training, with larger effect sizes per hour of training. Group A showed significant reductions during Year 1 when they received VR training (Year 2: didactic training), while Group B exhibited similar reductions during Year 2 when they underwent VR training (Year 1: didactic training). Group A, which received VR training in Year 1 followed by didactic training in Year 2, showed significant reductions in radiation exposure during Year 1. Group B, which received didactic training in Year 1 followed by VR training in Year 2, exhibited similar reductions during Year 2. Participant satisfaction and engagement were higher with VR training (<i>p</i> < 0.001), and confidence in applying safety practices increased significantly following VR training (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Group A reported these improvements after VR training in Year 1, while Group B experienced similar benefits after VR training in Year 2. Group A reported these improvements after VR training in Year 1, while Group B experienced similar benefits after VR training in Year 2.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The RadSafe VR Program is more effective than traditional didactic training in reducing radiation exposure among medical professionals. VR training enhances radiation safety practices, improves participant s","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"72 S2","pages":"S52-S60"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.867","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143542271","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Maximise your continuing professional development (CPD) by reading the following selected article and answer the five questions. Please remember to self-claim your CPD and retain your supporting evidence. Answers will be available via the QR code and published in JMRS—Volume 72, Issue 4, December 2025.
{"title":"Continuing Professional Development–Medical Imaging","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.870","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.870","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Maximise your continuing professional development (CPD) by reading the following selected article and answer the five questions. Please remember to self-claim your CPD and retain your supporting evidence. Answers will be available via the QR code and published in JMRS—Volume 72, Issue 4, December 2025.</p><p>Scan this QR code to find the answers.</p>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"72 1","pages":"173"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.870","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143501827","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This letter is in response to https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.856, Impact of Pre-Examination Video Education in Gd-EOB-DTPA-Enhanced Liver MRI: Correspondence.
{"title":"Correspondence to “Impact of Pre-Examination Video Education in Gd-EOB-DTPA-Enhanced Liver MRI: A Comparative Study”","authors":"Junli Liang","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.873","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.873","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This letter is in response to https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.856, Impact of Pre-Examination Video Education in Gd-EOB-DTPA-Enhanced Liver MRI: Correspondence.\u0000 <figure>\u0000 <div><picture>\u0000 <source></source></picture><p></p>\u0000 </div>\u0000 </figure></p>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"72 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.873","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143492295","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The use of medical imaging services has increased globally with a concurrent increase in radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging (RNMI) research. However, New Zealand's RNMI research output relative to global trends is under-examined. This project evaluates New Zealand's RNMI research output between 1996 and 2022 compared to selected countries while highlighting global RNMI research output trends.
Methods
A bibliometric-based performance analysis was conducted using publication data from the SCImago Journal, the Country Rank portal, Clarivate InCites Benchmarking, and the Analytics platform. Registration data of RNMI professionals by country was collected to evaluate the relationship between research output and the number of registered professionals.
Results
Among the seven selected countries (the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa), New Zealand's research output was low, even when adjusted for population size and the number of professionals. A significant positive correlation was found between the number of registered RNMI professionals and the number of RNMI publications. Despite this, New Zealand had the highest percentage of RNMI documents cited.
Conclusion
Although New Zealand's RNMI publications follow the global upward trend, it does so at a proportionate loss. New Zealand ranked low in most bibliometric indicators apart from the percentage of documents cited, where it showed a notable citation impact. Emphasising research, increasing collaborative efforts, and undertaking further statistical analyses may enhance New Zealand's RNMI research output.
{"title":"Evaluation of New Zealand's Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, and Medical Imaging Research Output: A Bibliometric-Based Approach","authors":"Vicky Li, Sibusiso Mdletshe","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.875","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.875","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The use of medical imaging services has increased globally with a concurrent increase in radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging (RNMI) research. However, New Zealand's RNMI research output relative to global trends is under-examined. This project evaluates New Zealand's RNMI research output between 1996 and 2022 compared to selected countries while highlighting global RNMI research output trends.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A bibliometric-based performance analysis was conducted using publication data from the SCImago Journal, the Country Rank portal, Clarivate InCites Benchmarking, and the Analytics platform. Registration data of RNMI professionals by country was collected to evaluate the relationship between research output and the number of registered professionals.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Among the seven selected countries (the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and South Africa), New Zealand's research output was low, even when adjusted for population size and the number of professionals. A significant positive correlation was found between the number of registered RNMI professionals and the number of RNMI publications. Despite this, New Zealand had the highest percentage of RNMI documents cited.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Although New Zealand's RNMI publications follow the global upward trend, it does so at a proportionate loss. New Zealand ranked low in most bibliometric indicators apart from the percentage of documents cited, where it showed a notable citation impact. Emphasising research, increasing collaborative efforts, and undertaking further statistical analyses may enhance New Zealand's RNMI research output.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"72 3","pages":"315-324"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.875","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143501830","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cyrena Tabet, Amy Brown, Catriona Hargrave, Savannah Brown
Introduction
There has been an uptake in hypofractionation radiotherapy schedules (> 2.45 Gy per fraction) worldwide over the last decade. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the change in fractionation schedules for patients undergoing radiotherapy in regional Queensland. The influence of treatment site, intent and patient social circumstances was assessed, identifying any current gaps in practice.
Methods
This retrospective clinical audit, included patients who underwent radiotherapy in 2012, 2019 and 2022 at a large regional department. This allowed a 10-year analysis and an evaluation of any impact of COVID-19. Demographic data and treatment information was collected and analysed using descriptive statistics.
Results
There was a notable trend favouring hypofractionation for patients treated for breast and prostate cancer. In 2012, 62.7% of breast cancer patients were treated with conventional fractionation and 37.3% were treated with hypofractionation, versus 2.4% and 92.1%, respectively, in 2022. Prostate cancer fractionation changed from 99.4% of patients treated with conventional fractionation and 0.6% with hypofractionation in 2012 to 23.2% and 74.1%, respectively, in 2022. The standard of care also shifted for palliative intent, with lung, brain and bone metastases in 2022 being treated with increased hypofractionated and ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy (> 5 Gy per fraction). This coincides with more complex and modulated treatments being readily available, such as stereotactic radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy. Hypofractionated treatments, however, were not influenced by the social factors of patients, having no distinct relationship with Indigenous status, age and patients' distance to treatment.
Conclusion
This study has validated the increase in hypofractionated treatments over a range of cancer sites and treatment intents, with increased treatment complexity. This has a direct impact on both departmental resources and patient-centred care, offering value-based radiotherapy.
{"title":"Hypofractionation Utilisation in Radiation Therapy: A Regional Department Evaluation","authors":"Cyrena Tabet, Amy Brown, Catriona Hargrave, Savannah Brown","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.857","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.857","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>There has been an uptake in hypofractionation radiotherapy schedules (> 2.45 Gy per fraction) worldwide over the last decade. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the change in fractionation schedules for patients undergoing radiotherapy in regional Queensland. The influence of treatment site, intent and patient social circumstances was assessed, identifying any current gaps in practice.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This retrospective clinical audit, included patients who underwent radiotherapy in 2012, 2019 and 2022 at a large regional department. This allowed a 10-year analysis and an evaluation of any impact of COVID-19. Demographic data and treatment information was collected and analysed using descriptive statistics.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>There was a notable trend favouring hypofractionation for patients treated for breast and prostate cancer. In 2012, 62.7% of breast cancer patients were treated with conventional fractionation and 37.3% were treated with hypofractionation, versus 2.4% and 92.1%, respectively, in 2022. Prostate cancer fractionation changed from 99.4% of patients treated with conventional fractionation and 0.6% with hypofractionation in 2012 to 23.2% and 74.1%, respectively, in 2022. The standard of care also shifted for palliative intent, with lung, brain and bone metastases in 2022 being treated with increased hypofractionated and ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy (> 5 Gy per fraction). This coincides with more complex and modulated treatments being readily available, such as stereotactic radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy. Hypofractionated treatments, however, were not influenced by the social factors of patients, having no distinct relationship with Indigenous status, age and patients' distance to treatment.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study has validated the increase in hypofractionated treatments over a range of cancer sites and treatment intents, with increased treatment complexity. This has a direct impact on both departmental resources and patient-centred care, offering value-based radiotherapy.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"72 S2","pages":"S31-S41"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.857","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143501834","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Edel Doyle, Matthew R Dimmock, Kam L Lee, Peter Thomas, Richard B Bassed
Introduction: Paediatric diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) are dose levels for typical medical imaging examinations for broadly defined types of equipment with weight-stratification preferred by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Australia has never published paediatric DRLs for general radiography. The aim of this study was to collect radiation dose metrics for commonly performed radiographic projections in children in Australia and propose weight-based DRLs.
Methods: Ethics approval was granted to collect data, along with a waiver of consent. Radiographs were acquired in accordance with local protocols using direct digital X-ray equipment for children who presented for routine radiographic imaging. A spreadsheet was provided to each centre to record the patient's age and weight, as well as tube voltage and current-time product, source-to-image distance, use of a grid, additional filtration, automatic exposure control chamber selection and the displayed air kerma area product (KAP). Facility reference levels (FRLs) were calculated as the median for each X-ray unit based on data submitted for a minimum of three patients. The 75th percentiles of the FRLs across nine X-ray units from five centres were calculated as the proposed Local DRLs (LDRLs).
Results: The most commonly radiographed body parts in children were the chest, wrist, abdomen, elbow and foot. The proposed LDRLs range from 4 mGy•cm2 (oblique hand in 5-15 kg) to 884 mGy•cm2 (antero-posterior pelvis in 50-80 kg).
Conclusion: The estimation of LDRLs for radiographs from a weight-based patient study offers Australian reference values for guidance in the optimisation process.
{"title":"Proposed Diagnostic Reference Levels for Frequently Performed Paediatric Radiographic Examinations.","authors":"Edel Doyle, Matthew R Dimmock, Kam L Lee, Peter Thomas, Richard B Bassed","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.866","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.866","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Paediatric diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) are dose levels for typical medical imaging examinations for broadly defined types of equipment with weight-stratification preferred by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Australia has never published paediatric DRLs for general radiography. The aim of this study was to collect radiation dose metrics for commonly performed radiographic projections in children in Australia and propose weight-based DRLs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ethics approval was granted to collect data, along with a waiver of consent. Radiographs were acquired in accordance with local protocols using direct digital X-ray equipment for children who presented for routine radiographic imaging. A spreadsheet was provided to each centre to record the patient's age and weight, as well as tube voltage and current-time product, source-to-image distance, use of a grid, additional filtration, automatic exposure control chamber selection and the displayed air kerma area product (KAP). Facility reference levels (FRLs) were calculated as the median for each X-ray unit based on data submitted for a minimum of three patients. The 75th percentiles of the FRLs across nine X-ray units from five centres were calculated as the proposed Local DRLs (LDRLs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The most commonly radiographed body parts in children were the chest, wrist, abdomen, elbow and foot. The proposed LDRLs range from 4 mGy•cm<sup>2</sup> (oblique hand in 5-15 kg) to 884 mGy•cm<sup>2</sup> (antero-posterior pelvis in 50-80 kg).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The estimation of LDRLs for radiographs from a weight-based patient study offers Australian reference values for guidance in the optimisation process.</p>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143408592","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Maximise your continuing professional development (CPD) by reading the following selected article and answer the five questions. Please remember to self-claim your CPD and retain your supporting evidence. Answers will be available via the QR code and published in JMRS—Volume 72, Issue 4, December 2025.
{"title":"Continuing Professional Development—Radiation Therapy","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.859","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.859","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Maximise your continuing professional development (CPD) by reading the following selected article and answer the five questions. Please remember to self-claim your CPD and retain your supporting evidence. Answers will be available via the QR code and published in JMRS—Volume 72, Issue 4, December 2025.</p><p>Scan this QR code to find the answers.</p>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"72 1","pages":"174"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.859","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143390362","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Virtual reality (VR) has been increasingly recognised as a beneficial pedagogical tool in radiography education, particularly for skills training. This pilot study aims to gain insight into the viability of VR as a pedagogical instrument in a radiographic technique course within a Norwegian bachelor's programme in radiography by assessing users' experiences.
Methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted involving all first-year radiography students from a single bachelor programme in Norway. The study included a preliminary survey to gauge students' expectations prior to their first VR session and a main survey following the completion of the course. The surveys assessed demographics, prior VR experience, experiences with the use of VR as a learning tool and possible improvements. VR training was facilitated using Skilitics radiography simulation software across six stations equipped with Oculus Rift VR gear.
Results
Results indicated a significant difference between students' expectations and their actual experiences with VR in skills learning. While initial expectations were high, only 37% of students were content with VR training. Major issues highlighted included technical problems and limited pre-session training. Students expressed a preference for more VR stations, teacher guidance and better software features.
Conclusion
Although VR holds potential as a supplementary tool in radiography education, the study identified several areas for improvement in the pedagogical approach. Pre-session training, teacher assistance during the training sessions and feedback after the session are recommended to maximise the educational benefits of VR in radiography skills training.
{"title":"Students' Perceptions of Virtual Reality as Learning Tool in a Radiographic Technique Course","authors":"Katrine Staurem Ingebrigtsen, Nina Hanger, Albertina Rusandu","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.868","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.868","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Virtual reality (VR) has been increasingly recognised as a beneficial pedagogical tool in radiography education, particularly for skills training. This pilot study aims to gain insight into the viability of VR as a pedagogical instrument in a radiographic technique course within a Norwegian bachelor's programme in radiography by assessing users' experiences.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A cross-sectional study was conducted involving all first-year radiography students from a single bachelor programme in Norway. The study included a preliminary survey to gauge students' expectations prior to their first VR session and a main survey following the completion of the course. The surveys assessed demographics, prior VR experience, experiences with the use of VR as a learning tool and possible improvements. VR training was facilitated using Skilitics radiography simulation software across six stations equipped with Oculus Rift VR gear.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Results indicated a significant difference between students' expectations and their actual experiences with VR in skills learning. While initial expectations were high, only 37% of students were content with VR training. Major issues highlighted included technical problems and limited pre-session training. Students expressed a preference for more VR stations, teacher guidance and better software features.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Although VR holds potential as a supplementary tool in radiography education, the study identified several areas for improvement in the pedagogical approach. Pre-session training, teacher assistance during the training sessions and feedback after the session are recommended to maximise the educational benefits of VR in radiography skills training.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"72 S2","pages":"S61-S69"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.868","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143189444","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号