Background: SARS-CoV-2 is the cause of the COVID-19 that has been declared a global pandemic by the WHO in 2020. The COVID-19 treatment guidelines vary in each country, and yet there is no approved therapeutic for COVID-19. Aims of the study: this review aimed to report any evidence of therapeutics used for the management of COVID-19 patients in clinical practice since the emergence of the virus. Methods: A systematic review protocol was developed based on PRISMA Statement. Articles for review were selected from electronic databases (Embase, Medline and Google Scholar). Readily accessible peer-reviewed full articles in English published from December 1 ^st , 2019 to March 26 ^th , 2020 were included. The search terms included combinations of: COVID, SARS-COV-2, glucocorticoids, convalescent plasma, antiviral, antibacterial. There were no restrictions on the type of study design eligible for inclusion. Results: As of March 26, 2020, of the initial manuscripts identified (n=449) articles. Forty-one studies were included, of which clinical trials (n=3), (case reports n=7), case series (n=10), retrospective (n=11) and prospective (n=10) observational studies. Thirty-six studies were conducted in China (88%). The most common mentioned and reported medicine in this systematic review was corticosteroids (n=25), followed by Lopinavir (n=21) and oseltamivir (n=16). Conclusions: This is the first systematic review up to date related to the therapeutics used in COVID-19 patients. Only forty-one research articles on COVID-19 and therapeutics were found eligible to be included, most conducted in China, corticosteroid therapy was found to be the most used medicine in these studies.

Objectives: To evaluate the role of teleradiology during the COVID-19 pandemic from Saudi radiologists’ perspectives to improve the radiology quality service. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out in Saudi Arabia among radiologists working at local hospitals from October to November 2021. It contains 21 questions involved demographic information; general information on teleradiology services; and the impact of teleradiology during COVID-19. One-way ANOVA was used to compare demographic groups. Chi-square test was used to compare demographic groups regarding their distribution of responses. All tests were carried out <0.05 level of significance. Results: A total of 102 radiologists participated in this study (56% males, 44% females), 58.8% of them were sub-specialized in chest radiology. Regarding the general status of teleradiology, 69.6% of participants believed that teleradiology is a helpful tool for imaging interpretation. However, 44% of them were uncertain on the impact of teleradiology on patients’ confidentiality. Approximately 87% of participants agreed that there is a positive contribution of teleradiology during COVID-19, which enables decreasing risk of infection and workload. There was a significant difference between professional degrees and overall participant responses (p<0.05). Academicians agreed that it enhances radiology departments’ work (mean=17.78, SD=1.86). Conclusion: Concerns raised on complicated cases that require physical presence of patients, cannot be performed by teleradiology. Additionally, it might provide insufficient communication with other professionals to discuss images.

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore opinions and views towards radiology AI among Saudi Arabian radiologists including both consultants and trainees. Methods: A qualitative approach was adopted, with radiologists working in radiology departments in the Western region of Saudi Arabia invited to participate in this interview-based study. Semi-structured interviews (n = 30) were conducted with consultant radiologists and trainees. A qualitative data analysis framework was used based on Miles and Huberman’s philosophical underpinnings. Results: Several factors, such as lack of training and support, were attributed to the non-use of AI-based applications in clinical practice and the absence of radiologists’ involvement in AI development. Despite the expected benefits and positive impacts of AI on radiology, a reluctance to use AI-based applications might exist due to a lack of knowledge, fear of error and concerns about losing jobs and/or power. Medical students’ radiology education and training appeared to be influenced by the absence of a governing body and training programmes. Conclusion: The results of this study support the establishment of a governing body or national association to work in parallel with universities in monitoring training and integrating AI into the medical education curriculum and residency programmes. Advances in knowledge: An extensive debate about AI-based applications and their potential effects was noted, and considerable exceptions of transformative impact may occur when AI is fully integrated into clinical practice. Therefore, future education and training programmes on how to work with AI-based applications in clinical practice may be recommended.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the implications of low radiation dose in abdominal computed tomography (CT) when combined with noise reduction filters and to see if this approach can overcome the challenges that arise while scanning obese patients. Anthropomorphic phantoms layered with and without 3-cm-thick circumferential animal fat packs to simulate different sized patients were scanned using a 128-slice multidetector CT (MDCT) scanner. Abdominal protocols (n = 12) were applied using various tube currents (150, 200, 250, and 300 mA) and tube voltages (100, 120, and 140 kVp). MOSFET dosimeters measured the internal organ dose. All images were reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and different iterative reconstruction (IR) strengths (SAFIRE 3, SAFIRE 4, and SAFIRE 5) techniques and objective noise was measured within three regions of interests (ROIs) at the level of L4–L5. Organ doses varied from 0.34–56.2 mGy; the colon received the highest doses for both phantom sizes. Compared to the normal-weighted phantom, the obese phantom was associated with an approximately 20% decrease in effective dose. The 100 kVp procedure resulted in a 40% lower effective dose (p < 0.05) compared to at 120 kVp and the associated noise increase was improved by increasing the IR (5) use, which resulted in a 60% noise reduction compared to when using FBP (p < 0.05). When combined with iterative reconstruction, the low-kVp approach is feasible for obese patients in order to optimize radiation dose and maintain objective image quality.

To assess radiographers' understanding of radiation safety considering the newly approved national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) as an optimization tool for radiation dose. A cross-sectional study was conducted in Saudi Arabia among radiographers working at local hospitals in Jeddah city from February to March 2022. The survey comprised of 22 questions involving demographic information; and general information related to radiation dose; CTDI_vol and DRLs. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26. Chi-square test was used to compare demographic groups regarding their distribution of responses with 0.05 as the level of significance. A total of 169 radiographers participated in the study (39 % females, 60 % males). Most of the participants (91 %) were aware of the description of the ALARA principle. It was noted that (47 %) of the participants indicated that the routine scanning protocols are designed by the radiologists. The majority of them (78 %) were confident to manipulate the CT scanning parameters properly. In addition, half of the participants (53 %) were aware of the CTDI_vol and DLP. Unexpectedly, none of the demographic variables were significantly associated with the radiographers’ knowledge about radiation dose, p-values are > 0.05. Although radiographers demonstrated good knowledge of radiation protection, limited awareness of DRLs was noted among radiographers and lack of implementing and optimizing the local dose of the DRLs in this study. Therefore, education and training for healthcare professionals including radiographers are necessary to enhance clinical practical performance in radiology departments.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the preparedness of Saudi radiological sciences students for emergencies by assessing their awareness of cardiac arrest evaluation criteria, knowledge of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillators, and attitudes towards performing CPR. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted among students from the radiological sciences program at three Saudi universities. Using a well-established questionnaire, the study employed non-probability convenient sampling. Descriptive statistics were generated, and chi-square test examined associations between categorical variables and Basic Life Support (BLS) training status. Results: Out of 367 students contacted, 261 participated (71.1% response rate). BLS training markedly enhances knowledge of the correct chest compression rate, with 50.9% of trained students demonstrating accurate understanding compared to 27.5% of untrained students (P < 0.0001). A significant correlation was found between BLS training and the ability to perform cardiac massage during cardiac arrest and respiratory standstill, with 44.1% of students demonstrating this knowledge (P < 0.0001). Notably, 80.8% of students without BLS training lacked knowledge of cardiac massage, compared to only 30.4% of those with training. Additionally, 30.6% of students were familiar with defibrillators, and 44.1% knew AED locations (P = 0.0007). Hesitation to perform CPR was mainly due to fear of mistakes (53.6%) and harm concerns (31.1%). Conclusion: Our findings reveal significant gaps in knowledge, confidence, and preparedness for cardiac emergencies among Saudi radiological sciences students, with only 41.4% having completed BLS training. These results highlight the urgent need for comprehensive BLS education to.