Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly utilised in medical imaging systems and processes, and radiographers must embrace this advancement. This study aimed to investigate perceptions, knowledge, and expectations towards integrating AI into medical imaging amongst a sample of radiographers and determine the current state of AI education within the community. A cross-sectional online quantitative study targeting radiographers based in Europe was conducted over ten weeks. Captured data included demographical information, participants' perceptions and understanding of AI, expectations of AI and AI-related educational backgrounds. Both descriptive and inferential statistical techniques were used to analyse the obtained data. A total of 96 valid responses were collected. Of these, 64% correctly identified the true definition of AI from a range of options, but fewer (37%) fully understood the difference between AI, machine learning and deep learning. The majority of participants (83%) agreed they were excited about the advancement of AI, though a level of apprehensiveness remained amongst 29%. A severe lack of education on AI was noted, with only 8% of participants having received AI teachings in their pre-registration qualification. Overall positive attitudes towards AI implementation were observed. The slight apprehension may stem from the lack of technical understanding of AI technologies and AI training within the community. Greater educational programs focusing on AI principles are required to help increase European radiography workforce engagement and involvement in AI technologies. This study offers insight into the current perspectives of European based radiographers on AI in radiography to help facilitate the embracement of AI technology and convey the need for AI-focused education within the profession.

Background: Chest radiography after peripherally inserted central catheter insertion in infants is the reference standard method for verifying catheter tip position. The utilisation of ultrasound (US) for catheter placement confirmation in the neonatal and paediatric population has been the focus of many recent studies. Objective: In this systematic review we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of US for peripherally inserted central catheter tip confirmation in infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) Materials and methods: We conducted a systematic literature search of multiple databases. The study selection yielded eight articles, all of which had acceptable quality and homogeneity for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Sensitivity and specificity values were reported together with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: After synthesising the eligible studies, we found that US had a sensitivity of 95.2% (95% CI 91.9–97.4%) and specificity of 71.4% (95% CI 59.4–81.6%) for confirming catheter tip position. Conclusion: Analyses indicated that US is an excellent imaging test for localising catheter tip position in the NICU when compared to radiography. Ultrasonography is a sensitive, specific and timely imaging modality for confirming PICC tip position. In cases where US is unable to locate malpositioned PICC tips, a chest or combined chest–abdominal radiograph should be performed.

According to the literature, low back pain (LBP) is one of the top ten diseases and injuries contributing to disability-adjusted life years worldwide. To the best of the authors' knowledge there are no studies investigating the prevalence of LBP among radiographers working in Ireland or have compared prevalence rates with the national population or other cohorts of radiographers or healthcare professionals. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of LBP among radiographers working or who have previously worked in Ireland and to identify any causative factors. A cross-sectional study in the form of an online questionnaire was developed. Participation was advertised online via social media platforms. Inclusion criteria included qualified radiographers working in Ireland or who had recently worked in Ireland. Section A of the questionnaire focussed on acquiring demographic data. Section B comprised eight questions relating to LBP, including current and previous experiences, causative factors and consequences. Further details on any episodes of LBP in the previous year, whether work and leisure activities had been affected, whether any extracurricular activities caused LBP, and whether a participant sought professional advice. Section C (six questions) used a 5-point ordinal scale to collect information on the frequency of specific tasks performed by radiographers in their daily roles. Section D involved exploratory questions, including whether LBP has forced a career change if they knew anyone who has changed their career as a result of LBP, reaction to the amount of manual handling required for radiographers, whether they thought manual handling training was sufficient, thoughts on the availability of assistive transfer devices, reasons for not following correct patient transfer guidelines, and finally whether they were concerned about LBP affecting their future. 151 radiographers participated in this study, and the point prevalence rate of LBP was 50%, with 12 months prevalence rate of 75%. Regarding activity levels, 25% (n=37) reported reduced work activity, and a further 43%(n=65) reduced leisure activities due to LBP. 37% (n=56) have sought medical advice from a doctor, physiotherapist, or other HCP concerning their LBP in the last year. 68% (n=104) of respondents who have LBP confirmed it was not a result of any extracurricular activities. The prevalence of LBP among radiographers in Ireland was high and 4.7 times higher than the period prevalence rate recorded in the general population. LBP rates were similar to radiographers working in other jurisdictions. Data from this study may help manage LBP and monitor any interventions' effectiveness.

Children with congenital heart disease are exposed to repeated medical imaging throughout their lifetime. Although the imaging contributes to their care and treatment, exposure to ionising radiation is known to increase one’s lifetime attributable risk of malignancy. A systematic search of multiple databases was performed. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to all relevant papers and seven were deemed acceptable for quality assessment and risk of bias assessment. The cumulative effective dose (CED) varied widely across the patient cohorts, ranging from 0.96 mSv to 53.5 mSv. However, it was evident across many of the included studies that a significant number of patients were exposed to a CED >20 mSv, the current annual occupational exposure limit. Many factors affected the dose which patients received, including age and clinical demographics. The imaging modality which contributed the most radiation dose to patients was cardiology interventional procedures. Paediatric patients with congenital heart disease are at an increased risk of receiving an elevated cumulative radiation dose across their lifetime. Further research should focus on identifying risk factors for receiving higher radiation doses, keeping track of doses, and dose optimisation where possible.

According to current literature, there is a lack of information regarding the radiation protection (RP) practices of interventional radiology (IR) and cardiology catheter laboratory (CCL) staff. This study aims to determine the RP practices of staff within IR and CCLs internationally and to suggest areas for improvement. A cross-sectional study in the form of an online questionnaire was developed. Participation was advertised via online platforms and through email. Participants were included if they were healthcare professionals currently working in IR and CCLs internationally. Questionnaire design included Section 1 demographic data, Section 2 assessed RP training and protocols, Section 3 surveyed the use of different types of RP lead shields, both personal and co-worker use and Section 4 assessed other methods of minimising radiation dose within practice. Questions were a mix of open and closed ended, descriptive statistics were used for closed questions and thematic analysis was employed for open ended responses. A total of 178 responses to the questionnaire were recorded with 130 (73 %) suitable for analysis. Most respondents were female (n = 94, 72 %) and were radiographers (n = 97, 75 %). Only 68 (53 %) had received training, the majority receiving this in-house (n = 54, 79 %). 118 (98 %) of respondents had departmental protocols in place for RP. Radiology managers (n = 106, 82 %) were most likely to contribute to such protocols. Multiple methods of dose minimisation exist, these include low-dose fluoroscopy, staff rotation, radiation dose audits and minimal time in the controlled areas. Respondents reported that lead apron shields were wore personally by 99 % of respondents and by co-workers in 95 % of cases. The practices of RP by IR and CCL staff in this survey was variable and can be improved. The unavailability of basic radiation protection tools and RP specific training courses/modules were some of the reasons for sub-optimal self-protection against ionising radiation reported by respondents.