Radiology

I would like to know if this essay is okay. Please give me some feed back. I wrote the letter double space. Should it be single space? I also have my name and the desired program on the top left hand. I am not a great writer and my grammar sucks. My Purpose in Life It is not hard to write about why I want to be a radiographer. Some people may tend to sit in front of the screen thinking for minutes or hours to write the first sentence. It was simple for me I want to help people.

Throughout my life, I was always interested in helping people and fascinated with the medical field. I was not certain in what I wanted to do in the medical field, but I knew whatever it was it was going to make me a better person. A few years back I was in a car accident and injured my back. I had an MRI and some basic x-rays done. While in the care of these highly trained and friendly technicians, I came to realize this is what I wanted to do. I believe that our soul purpose in life is to help others.

Since my car accident, I realized how I could accomplish my main goal in life. I can help people by being a radiographer. It may sound a little cliched my story, but it is the truth. Since I have been attending college I thought about being a nurse then a dental hygienist, but I never had that feeling that most people get when something is right. The feeling when you find that special or right thing. Like buying a house, car, or even finding that special someone. The sensation is a warm enthusiasm feeling that consumes the heart.

It is a feeling that takes all control of all emotions. When I realized and was introduce into the field, I knew it was love at first sight. I wanted to know more about radiology. Before I joined the military, I did some observation in the E. R. in a hospital on Long Island, New York. I observed and spoke to a few radiology technicians and the more I discovered about the field the more I knew it was for me. I enjoy being active and being on my feet. In addition, it is very physical and I enjoy having a job that can keep me in shape and is not lways putting me behind the desk. After I left the military, I moved down to Fl to be closer to my family. I miss my family from all those days away from either being in another state or from being deployed. I was looking into colleges that provide a radiology program and only found University of Central Florida and Valencia Community College. I am currently attending Valencia Community college and taking classes to get into their radiology program. I started to do volunteer work at Florida hospital. While volunteering I was introduce to a few radiology technicians.

Before long, I found out that Florida Hospital is a teaching hospital. They gave me information and I talked to a few students that are in the program. They told me that their experience in Florida Hospital is great and that the teachers are phenomenal. Also being a Christian I thought it would be a great opportunity to learn more about my religion. Also, I feel that being in a Christian institution I can better understand people and life. I know that being a radiographer is challenging and demanding both physically and mentally.

I accept the challenge because challenges are what make us who we are. When overcoming any challenges it gives me a sense of accomplishment and gives me more self-confidence that I can do much more. I know someday I will be a radiographer because I am determined and very focus on accomplishing my goal, my dream. I am outgoing and big on teamwork. I work hard and take pride in what I do and what I believe in. I just hope that I can inspire people as those friendly radiographers inspired me.

In the past two decennaries, the figure of encephalon computed imaging scrutiny has increased quickly. This is in big portion due to progresss in multidetector CT engineering, which allows faster image acquisition and improved image quality. The increased usage in CT surveies has led to a significantly increased radiation dosage to the patient. However, about one tierce of CT encephalons scrutinies in the paediatric group are non pertinent to the diagnosing and direction. These show that it is non the best trial for the kids. Comparing with grownups, kids are more variety meats radiosensitive to radiation ; they will hold longer life clip hazard to confront cancerous alterations induced by radiation. In response to increasing concern for patient radiation protection, we should utilize the right proficient parametric quantities to protect the kids from inordinate and unneeded radiation dosage for these by CT scan. To cut down the radiation dosage, the doctors and radiotherapists should ever conscious to cut down CT scan radiation dosage for kids. Furthermore, we can develop some appropriate schemes to optimise scanning patterns based on the age, clinical indicants and organic structure size of the patients.

Undertaking aims and significance

The intent of this survey is to look into the consequence of dose decrease in different parametric quantity used in the Brain CT scan. In the visible radiation of addition the usage of encephalon CT scrutiny, dose decrease while maintain the CT diagnostic value and image quality is a ambitious undertaking. Since a figure of issues are related to CT radiation, they have become more outstanding as usage has increased. The issues concerns about the part of CT to a comparatively big radiation dosage to the populace. Furthermore, kids have more organ radiosensitive than grownups and they have a longer lifetime hazard radiation-induced malignant neoplastic disease. Therefore, we should do accommodation of paediatric CT parametric quantities based on the size or part of involvement to be scanned. On the other manus, the decrease of radiation dosage to cranial CT may depend on many factors such as replacing of CT usage, by utilizing other mode ( MRI or ultrasound ) which have less radiation dosage, lessening in the figure of CT surveies requested.

The aim of this survey is to find whether a lower radiation dosage technique could be used for paediatric cranial CT without impacting the diagnostic value and image quality in the scrutiny. Reviewing the literature and compare the approximative equivalent dosage to relevant organ ( mSv ) , I find that the protocol scenes in planing for kids and grownups are about the same. The radiation decrease can be about 50 % reduced by altering some parametric quantities. Therefore, the CT protocol scenes in cranial CT used for grownups should non be used for kids.

It is the clip we should alter the attitude and face the job how to cut down the radiation dosage in CT engineering for kids. The CT makers, doctors, radiotherapists and radiographer besides portion the duty to keep an appropriate balance between radiation dosage and diagnostic image quality.

Background

CT is a various diagnostic process and it can give high diagnostic output. However, CT scanning comprises about 15 % of the radiological scrutiny and represents the largest beginning ( about 70 % ) of radiation dosage to the patient.1, 9 The usage of CT encephalon in kids is increasing in the past two decennaries. Indeed, CT induced radiation dosage is comparatively high compared with other imaging technique. The hazard for paediatric patients to develop long term biological effects following exposure to ionising radiation is higher than that for grownups because their cells, tissues and variety meats have a higher radiosentivity and they have a longer clip to live.2,11 The European Commission ( EC ) states that & amp ; acirc ; ˆ?radiation exposure in the first 10 old ages of life is estimated to hold a hazard about 4 times greater than exposure incurred at 30-40 old ages of age for some damaging effects. Give the recent attending to radiation hazards, the radiation dosage of cranial CT in kids and the demand for accommodations in parametric quantities to the populace, we should understand more about existent pattern of cranial CT in paediatric patients.

Most CT Centre merely follows the recommended scenes of the makers, but these may non the best appropriate scenes for the patient. For paediatric cranial CT, there is no consensus about the optimal scene in different infirmaries.

To understand a patient receives how much of the radiation dosage in a peculiar scan, one must hold cognition of the methods of dose measuring. Radiation dosage is influenced by the radiation quality, the geometry of the scanner, the sensor type and the current transition of the tube.10 Dose increases nonlinearly with an addition in tube electromotive force but will diminish the image noise. Typically, an addition in kVp from 120 to 140kVp will increase the dose by about 47 % . The incursion is improved and an about 70 % higher dosage reaches the sensor. But in some articles, informations suggest that kVp every bit low as 80 kVp can besides supply acceptable image quality in neonates.

Milliamperes ( ma ) and gantry rotary motion rhythm clip ( in seconds ) are combined to supply a step of radiation normally known as the tubing current ( ma ) . A additive relationship exists between tubing current and the radiation dosage. By cutting down the ma half, the patient exposure can be reduced by 50 % while maintaining the same noise degree and image quality. Cohnen et Al besides studied CT dosage in paediatric cranial CT and concluded that a 40 % decrease was possible.7 Chan et Al performed CT in kids aged 1-12 old ages with several different milliampere 2nd valleies and he found that a 40 % decrease in milliampere seconds could be used in paediatric cranial CT.

Section thickness and table velocity besides affect dosage. The faster table velocity and thicker piece should be selected based on the scan indicant. In general, most paediatric CT scan can be performed at a pitch of 1.5.5,6,12 Adjustment in piece thickness and pitch demand to be balanced against the possible loss in spacial declaration from the increased image noise.

Multiple dose descriptions have been used in the past. Presently, the Computed Tomography Dose Index ( CTDI ) , along with its discrepancies, and the Dose Length Product ( DLP ) are the standard parametric quantities used to depict CT associated radiation dosage. Radiation dose CTDI is measured in milligrays as displayed on the CT proctor every bit good as DLP which are calculated by the CT machine automatically. Increase the tube electromotive force from 120kVp to 140kVp additions the CT dosage index ( CTDI ) by a factor of 1.4, but decrease the tubing electromotive force to 80kVp lowers the CTDI by a factor of about 2.2.

We can measure the paediatric cranial CT protocol and happen the CT radiation dosage that is recommended to be every bit low as moderately accomplishable. Hence, we need to unite different attacks sing to CT dose decrease. In add-on, the refering parties including doctors, radiotherapists and radiographers must take the duty to keep an appropriate balance in scanning parametric quantities, diagnostic image quality and radiation dosage. Long term schemes is desperately set up that include encouraging development and acceptance of paediatric CT protocols, educating working staff through diary publications and conferences within and outside the radiology fortes, carry oning farther research to find the relationship between CT quality and dosage. We besides customize CT scanning for single kids to optimise exposure scenes and to measure the demand for CT in an single patient.

Methodology

The survey will be carried out in CT scan room at the Radiology Department of the Princess Margaret Hospital. A entire figure of 100 paediatric patients aged under 15 old ages for encephalon CT scan during January to June 2011 by indiscriminately selected as topics of this survey. Before informations aggregation, the survey will acquire the blessing from the Department Manager Mr. Fung and so explicate to all CT radiographers to acquire their full cooperation in the survey. Furthermore, the process will be explained to each patient and their parents in order to obtain their permission in the survey.

The patients will split into two groups, one is control group and the others are study group. Brain CT scan will be done by utilizing paediatric CT scan protocol in the control group. We can measure the radiation dosage by altering the exposure parametric quantities in the survey group. Brain CT scan was done utilizing 64-section CT scanner GE lightspeed VCT machine. Image obtained utilizing a multi-slice axial computed imaging system of 5mm piece thickness without automatic choice of effectual ma. Scaning parametric quantities that affect radiation dosage include peak kilovoltage, tubing current, pitch etc. Therefore, the survey group will be divided into 3 parts. The first portion is to compare the different kVp ( 80kVp, 100kVp and 120kVp ) to the image quality while other puting kept at a changeless scene. The 2nd portion is to compare the different tubing current ( 100mAs and 120 ma ) and the 3rd portion is to compare the different pitch ( 1 and 1.5 ) . All CTDI and Dose-Length Product will be recorded after the scrutiny.

I will ask for two radiotherapists Dr. Yung and Dr. Lam to reexamine the movies in a double-blinded mode by utilizing 6 inquiries assessment strategy. Question 1-5 are refering about radiation dosage and image quality for visualising defined anatomical constructions. The anatomical construction chosen for reappraisal included: ( Q1 ) border of the sidelong ventricles, ( Q2 ) the basilar arteria in the prepontine cistern, ( Q3 ) internal capsules, ( Q4 ) ambient cistern, ( Q5 ) gray-white distinction at the degree of 4th ventricles. The inquiry 6 will inquire the radiotherapists grade of assurance in doing a diagnosing.

A 5-point marking system will be used for rating. Indicate 5 means the anatomical construction can clearly be visualized and the assurance degree in making a diagnosing are about 90 % or above. Indicate 4 agencies visual image and assurance are about 70 % . Point 3,4 and 5 are about 50 % , 30 % and less than 10 % severally. Consistency of marking will be assessed by giving 40 scans to the two radiotherapists. The average tonss given to these 6 inquiries during the first and 2nd reading will be compared.

Statistical analysis will set about utilizing assurance interval ( CI ) and hypothesis testing, as expressed by P values. The assurance interval can demo the deficiency of preciseness in the estimation of involvement and therefore conveyed more utile information than the P value which are merely a quantitative value. For each reader, 95 % CI and a two sample t-test will execute to compare the average value of the tonss for each inquiry between the two groups. For inquiry 6, this assessed the radiotherapists &  assurance degree, farther distribution of tonss between the two groups. Dependability trials to measure intra-reader understanding in hiting the movies were besides carried out by utilizing 95 % CI and paired t-test. Analysis was facilitated by the usage of commercially available computing machine statistics plan SPSS ver.1.7.

Critique: Research Study Radiology

1. Citation

Upton, D. & Upton , P. (2006). Knowledge and Use of Evidence-based practice by allied health and health science professionals in the United Kingdom. Journal of Allied Health, 35:3, 127-133

2. Study Purpose

The following critically reviews a paper by Upton and Upton (2006), concerned with clinical effectiveness (CE) and evidence-based practice (EBP) and the differences between them amongst different professional groups. It compares 14 different groups in terms of how they understand and implement CE and EBP. Evidence-based practice is the application by health care professionals of the most appropriate research evidence to clinical situations, taking into account the whole context in which they operate, including the client’s needs (Hoffman et al 2009). Clinical effectiveness, according to the Department of Health (1996) is “the extent to which specific clinical interventions, when deployed in the field for a particular patient or population, do what they are intended to do” (DoH 1996; cited Hamer and Collinson 2005).Upton and Upton suggest that the differences between these concepts in different fields has, so far, been under researched.

3. Literature

Upton and Upton’s literature review is fairly short, and forms part of the introduction. While it might be slightly clearer to separate this out from other areas covered in the introduction, this seems a fairly standard academic practice. The review does not explain what either CE or EBP are, nor of the history of the terms. While this might be superfluous to the paper, and while the author’s might assume the expected audience will be familiar with the terms already, the term, EBP, for example is, to some extent, ambiguous (Roberts and Yeager 2004), and a statement here, rather than later of the definition used would have been welcome.

The bulk of the review looks at existing research which explores “the views and knowledge of health care professionals toward EBP” (Upton and Upton 2006), pointing out that they mainly concern medical practitioners, with fewer looking at others including McCaughan et al (2002) (nurses) and Iqbal and Glenny (2002) (dental practitioners). They discuss the studies which, like theirs, do compare different professions (Palfreyman et al 2004; Metcalfe et al 2001). These find common features and differences between the groups: nurses, for example, rate their EBP abilities lower than physiotherapists. Not only are existing studies, few, their scope is limited and omits key areas of interest.

As such the literature review provides a good justification for Upton and Upton’s study, by showing the deficit of existing research. However, as an overview of the concepts of EBP and CE it is less successful. In addition it does not suggest a theoretical model to shape and give depth to the study, for example one which predicts differences between professional groups, like that of Gawlinski and Rutledge (2008), who suggest that different models of EBP meet different needs of differing clinical environments.

4. Approach and Methodology

The authors do not explicitly discuss the paradigm under which their research was carried out, and their ‘methodology’ section is only one paragraph. A paradigm is the approach to the research taken by researchers. Johnson and Christensen (2010) suggest that there are three major paradigms, qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods, each of which embraces a set of assumptions about epistemology and the nature of reality. Upton and Upton’s approach is quantitative, empiricist and positivist. Positivism was established by Comte in the early 19th Century, and assumes that the world is objective of human experience, and knowable through our senses.Empiricism is concerned with factual data, and empirical research’s ideal method is the scientific method, whereby clear hypotheses are formulated prior to research and are designed to be tested against empirical evidence. Data is primarily numerical, and outcomes are objective and measurable. This approach contrasts with a qualitative, interpretivist approach, which deals with text, subjectivity and the richness of experience (Tappen 2010). Given that Upton and Upton want to investigate an under-researched area, it is understandable why they used a quantitative approach, as it allows them to investigate a larger data set and draw more generalisable conclusions, and also give scope for assessing statistical significance. However, a qualitative approach would have allowed them to look in more detail at how different types of practitioner experienced EBP and CE, which would have added richness to the study.

5. Sample

Again, there is relatively little detail given by the authors here. They tell us that 1000 members of Allied Healthcare Professions (AHP) and Health Science Services (HSS) were selected, and that the sample represents the proportions of each practicing in the UK. While they assure us that ‘specific statistical methods were used to establish sample size’, there is little discussion of what these were or why they were selected over other possible methods. The authors are informative about the response rate (66.6%), and add that most were female, but there are other details about the sample which are not discussed, and which might have been useful to know. For example, how were participants contacted, and what was the wording used to ask them to take part There is potential for bias here, if the method of contact attracted practitioners who had had either predominantly bad or good experiences of EBP or CE. Postal questionnaires were used, and here the authors do discuss alternative methods, and give a reasonable justification for their choice. In addition, although the authors discuss gender, it might have been interesting to know more about participants. Was there bias towards older or younger respondents, or towards one or other social class They suggest there is a bias towards women, but as this represents the breakdown between men and women in the occupations overall, this does not seem to present a particular problem.

6. Data Collection

Data was collected by questionnaire, distributed by post. The authors used a questionnaire that had already been developed and tested, by Upton and Lewis (1998). Therefore the reliability and validity (whether the questionnaire gives the same results repeatedly, over time, and whether it tests what it sets out to test: Babbie 2008) had already been established. They also distinguish between content and face validity, and confirm that both are good for the questionnaire. Face validity is weaker than content validity, and confirms simply that an instrument seems to measure what it is intended to measure. Content validity covers the “full domain of the concept” and whether it measures all this domain (Rubin 2011). Upton and Upton give a fairly good breakdown of the content of the questionnaire, dividing their discussion into the sections contained in it, including demographics, respondent knowledge of CE and EBP, the extent to which respondents practice different aspects of CE and EBT, and barriers to implementation of EBP. For each, they explain the ways in which each aspect were assessed using an appropriate instrument.What is missing here is any discussion of why these instruments were selected over alternatives, and whether alternatives exist. Although Upton and Lewis’s (1998) instrument seems well regarded, there are also the ‘Evidence-Based Practice Beliefs Scale’ and ‘Evidence-Based Practice Implementation Scale’s (Melnyk et al 2008), and the ‘Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (Aarons, 2004), for example (Rice et al 2010).

The authors give more detail about how participants were contacted here, via a ‘publicity notice’. This might give rise to bias, however, as those who were motivated to take part might well have stronger opinions about EBP and CE and want to express these. Other selection methods might have been considered. There is also no information about the length of time taken to distribute and collect the questionnaires, nor how long the respondents were given to complete them. A longer time might have led to more detailed results, but also to the possibility of other influences effecting responses. Because the questionnaires were distributed by post, there also seems to be little provision for dealing with problems which might be encountered by respondents while completing their forms.

7. Results and Discussion

The authors present their results in some detail, using both tables and written presentation, which makes the data easier to understand.Although they mention that the response rate was high, at 66.6%, some more detail about drop out rates would have been welcome here. For example, did the 66.6% represent the proportion of people who completed the full survey, or just a part of the survey?

The authors divide the discussion by question type, looking in turn at ‘knowledge of concepts and principles of CE and EBP’, ‘Reported use of EBP’, ‘Acting on evidence from a variety of sources’, and ‘barriers to the application of EBP’. This allows clarity in the discussion. They also explain the details of the results well, with a logical pattern of explanation. For example, they say that overall, knowledge of CE and EBP was low, and then give more detail showing there are clear distinctions between different professions, with more psychologists and physiotherapists rating their knowledge in the ‘high’ category than other professions including podiatrists and speech therapists. The authors also back up the intuitive reading of the results with statistical analyses, and note the drawback that small cell numbers in some cases prevent such a confirmation. For reported use of EBP, there are again differences between the professional groups, with a particular link between frequency with which gaps in knowledge are identified and profession. Other key findings in this, and subsequent sections, are clearly reported. There is a separate table for each sub-section of the questionnaire, and each is clear and easy to read. Because the tables (perhaps because of space constraints) summarise information across both the range of professions and for each aspect rated, it is not immediately obvious which professions are ranked higher for each aspect. Also, the tables summarise the aspects rather than using the verbatim wording, for example “monitoring own practice” and “critical analysis”. It might have been interesting to see the actual wording used in the questionnaire. In addition, while statistical information is presented more fully in the text, key information is missing from the tables, for example standard deviation in table 4. Similarly also, the discussion of ‘knowledge of the concepts and principles of CE and EBP’ includes a description of statistical tests including a one-way analysis of variance, but these results are not presented in the tables.

Even though the author’s sample size is relatively high, some cells were so small that certain categories had to be removed from the analysis, for example, orthoptists for ‘reported use of EBP’. This is unfortunate, as it means the full range of professions cannot be assessed for this category.

The authors also present a detailed and intelligent discussion of what the results mean.Their conclusions seem to be backed up by the results, for example, their initial claim that there are “some differences between professional groups in terms of knowledge base and self-reported use of CE and EBP”: this was discussed in the earlier results section. This summary is initially concerned to draw out key themes from the results section. They first suggest that while both HSS and AHP groups have low levels of knowledge, the lowest levels were from professionals from HSS groups. As well as reporting this, they suggest that this is due to the relatively recent introduction of the concept to these professionals, as well as differences in the extent to which each group are involved in day-to-day care of patients.This is interesting, but might the discussion might have had more depth had the differences between HSS and AHP been brought out in more detail during the literature review. They also do not give references for their claims about the differences between HSS and AHP groups, so there is no context for their discussion. However, this is a valuable discussion, as it suggests that part of the problem is the lack of an evidence base for certain professions including radiographers and podiatrists. This insight could be used to generate new practice in these professions.There are similarly useful discussions of other areas of the findings, for example the differences between groups’ ratings of EBP skills. The authors suggest that psychologists, for example, rate their skills higher due to a different emphasis put upon a degree during training. This again throws a useful light upon possible revisions to the way professions are managed. However, Upton and Upton’s discussion here is again marred by lack of reference to any other academic sources. This fruitful area must, surely, have already attracted academic discussion One positive here is that Upton and Upton do not simply stick to one possible explanation, but consider others, for example that respondents rating of their skills does not match their actual skill level.

Their discussions of other areas, for example application of EBP and barriers to its uptake, also display positive and negative features; bringing out key aspects of the results well, and providing interesting interpretations of these results, but with less referencing and relating the results to other academic research than might be useful. Overall, there could have been a little more discussion of overall themes that arose across sections, for example the need for better management of different professions with more uniform integration of EBP, and improved training in its use.

One final, positive point about the results and subsequent discussion is that the authors talk about methodological drawbacks, including those related to postal surveys (respondents may be less honest than with other research methods).They do not, however, consider other possible limitations, for example the lack of any qualitative data, which might have given a richer perspective on what respondents felt emotionally about using EBP and CE. They also do not discuss relationship of the data to any overarching theoretical framework, which might also have added depth to the study.

9. Conclusion and Clinical Implications

The author’s conclusion is perhaps rather short. They simply summarise their key finding, that there are ‘very apparent differences in the knowledge and use of CE and EBP by members of the AHP and HSS’, and that there were other, discipline-related, differences. This brevity is somewhat disappointing. They do not consider any practical implications for the research, nor whether it would be appropriate for AHP and HSS members to show equal levels of awareness and use of CE and EBP. Also, they do not make any suggestions for further research, although as they earlier remarked that there is a lack of study in this area, there is a clear need for such research, perhaps investigating differences between professions further, or looking at ways knowlegge and use of CE and EBP can be increased overall.

To summarise this paper, a critical analysis of a study by Upton and Upton (2006) has been presented, looking at all aspects of their work from introduction to discussion and conclusion. This is a paper with many interesting and well presented areas, but there are some negative points and areas which could be improved.

References

1. Aarons, G A (2004) ‘Mental health provider attitudes toward adoption of evidence based practice: The evidence-based practice attitude scale (EBPAS)’, Mental Health
2. Services Research, 6, 61-74
3. Babbie, E R (2008) The basics of social research (4th edn.) Cengage Learning, USA.
4. Department of Health (1996) Promoting clinical effectiveness a framework for action in and through the NHS, Department of Health, UK
5. Gawlinski, A and Rutledge, D (2008) ‘Selecting a model for evidence-based practice changes: a practical approach’, AACN Adv Crit Care, 19:3, 291-300.
6. Hamer, S and Collinson, G (2005) Achieving evidence-based practice: a handbook for practitioners (2nd edn.) Elsevier Health Sciences, Philadelphia PA.
7. Hoffman, T, Bennett, S and Del Mar, C (2009) Evidence-Based Practice Across the Health Professions, Elsevier Australia, Australia.
8. Iqbal, A and Glenny A, M (2002) ‘General dental practitioners knowledge of and attitudes towards evidence based practice’, Br Dent J, 193, 587–591
9. McCaughan, D, Thompson, C, and Cullum, N (2002) ‘Acute care nurses’ perceptions of barriers to using research information in clinical decision- making’, J Adv Nurs 39:46–60.
10. Melnyk, B M, Fineout-Overholt, E, & Mays, M Z (2008) ‘The evidence-based practice beliefs and implementation scales: Psychometric properties of two new instruments’, Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 4, 208-216.
11. Metcalfe, CR, Lewin S, and Wisher S (2001) ‘Barriers to implementing the evidence base in four NHS therapies: dieticians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech and language therapists’, Physiotherapy87:433–441.
12. Palfreyman, S, Tod, A and Doyle, J (2004) ‘Comparing evidence-based practice of nurses and physiotherapists’, Br J Nurs, 1:246–253.
13. Rice, K, Hwang, J, Abrefa-Gyan, T and Powel, K (2010) ‘Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis in a Social Work Sample’, Advances in Social Work, 11:2, 158-173
14. Roberts, A R and Yeager, K (2004) Evidence-based practice manual: research and outcome measures in health and human services, Oxford University Press, Oxon.
15. Rubin, A (2011) Practitioner’s Guide to Using Research for Evidence-Based Practice, John Wiley and Sons, USA
16. Tappen, R (2010) Advanced Nursing Research: From Theory to Practice, Jones & Bartlett Learning, Sudbury MA
17. Upton, D and Lewis BK (1998) ‘Evidence based practice: a questionnaire to assess knowledge, attitudes and practice’, Br J Ther Rehabil, 5, 647–650

This post was contributed by Casey Roberts, who is a student and also writes for Radiology Assistant. Radiology Assistant helps students find the right radiology degree.

1.0. Introduction to Radiology

Radiology is the branch of medicine that uses radiographs to produce images of the human body in order to diagnose and treat ailments. Although radiology exclusively meant x-ray in the past, there are now many different types of radiology imaging used in medicine. Radiology dissertation topics can discuss new areas of technology, why the old ones are still relevant, or even a pro and con list of two or more types of radiology imaging. Below, we have more topics of interest to those writing a radiology dissertation.

2.0. Types of Radiology

2.1X-ray

2.1.1 The history and evolution of the x-ray since its first inception in 1895.
2.1.2 To what extent are x-rays still useful today, and will there ever be a day when they are no longer needed.
2.1.3 Madam Curie and the x-ray. Her curiosity to see how the beams worked in conjunction with radiation led to some amazing discoveries along with her death. Is the scientific venture worth sacrificing your own life for?
2.1.4 Use of x-rays for diagnosing conditions in the skull.
2.1.5 Use of x-rays to diagnose chest illnesses such as lung cancer, heart issues, and others.
2.1.6 How new developments in x-ray technology could effect the future, such as x-ray use in nanospectroscopy.
2.1.7 Application of x-ray technology beyond medicine, such as the use of the Chandra X-ray by NASA used to take images of space.

2.2 Fluoroscopy and Angiography

2.2.1How is the use of fluoroscopy and angiography superior/inferior to the use of x-ray?
2.2.2 What are the advantages and diseases that can be best treated by fluoroscopy and angiography along with their outcomes.
2.2.3 What are the dangers of iodine use in fluoroscopy and angiography.

2.3 Computerized tomography (CT)

2.3.1 Production of human organ systems from use of computerized tomography and their applications.
2.3.2 Production of three dimensional maps of human organs through the use of CT scans.
2.3.3 Use of CT scans to discern brain patterns for analysis, such as those in the mentally ill or who have dementia.
2.3.4 Growth of single-photon emission computed tomography to map blood flow and its uses in various diseases and conditions.
2.3.5 Use of CT technology beyond medicine in areas such as the environment, veterinary health, and even the geophysical.

2.4 Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)

2.4.1 How the use of MRI contrast agents can be improved to better develop images.
2.4.2 Use of MRI to diagnose intracranial hemorrhage for better patient outcomes.
2.4.3 Use of MRI to map out cardio functions to better diagnose conditions and plan surgeries.
2.4.4 Cost vs. effectiveness of use of MRI scanning vs. a cheaper but more limited imaging such as ultrasound.
2.4.5 The rise of MRI guided procedures as well as the benefits and shortfalls
2.4.6 Size of MRI machines, why they need to be so big, how they could be reduced in size, or increased in opening to accommodate larger patients.
2.4.7 Claustrophobia and the MRI machine: which patients should and should not be forced into one.

2.5 Nuclear Medicine

2.5.1 Use of radiopharmaceuticals in nuclear medicine and their dangers.
2.5.2 Analysis and comparison of agents used in nuclear medicine such as Iodine-123, Iodine-131, Gallium-67, Technetium-99m, and Thallium-201.
2.5.3 How nuclear medicine and CT scans can be used in tandem to produce better results.
2.5.4 Advantages and disadvantages of using positron emission tomography for use in detecting cancer.
2.5.5 Benefits and risks of nuclear medicine on items such as diagnosing, patient safety, and cost.
2.5.6 Disposal of nuclear medicine waste: the proper ways to be done, ways it can be recycled, and danger to the environment.
2.5.7 Cost of producing nuclear medicine agents and technology vs. the benefits

3.0. Other Radiology Topics

3.1 Difference between careers in radiology from doctor of radiology, radiology technician, radiology assistant, nurse, etc.
3.2 Use of radiology beyond diagnosing diseases and into items such as delivering drugs, guiding surgeries, etc.
3.3 How radiology can be used in the diagnosis and treatment of stroke.
3.4 Why hasn’t imaging technology in radiology kept up with imaging technology in personal photography with features such as digital images instead of film, smaller machines, lower costs, better results, etc.