Ong 1

Compare & Contrast Articles

There are various sources of radiation therapy information: books, journals, and trade
publications. Books include textbooks used in medical dosimetry, e.g. Radiation Therapy
Planning by Gunilla C. Bentel and Treatment Planning in Radiation Oncology by Faiz M. Khan
and Bruce J. Gerbi. Journals such as ASRT, AAMD, ASTRO, AAPM, ACMP, and ASCO are
peer-reviewed publications, some requiring membership. Trade journals such as Advance
Healthcare Network and Radiology Today, on the other hand, are always free because these are
paid by advertisers.1
For the purpose of this discussion topic, I will be selecting two articles, one from a trade
magazine and one from a professional journal, to compare and contrast.
Part 1: Trade Magazine
In the trade magazine article, “Sit Up and Take Notice” by Dan Harvey from Radiology
Today, the increased awareness of ergonomics in radiology reading rooms is discussed.2 The
importance of ergonomics is widely known to be beneficial in a work space thus overall mental
and physical health of staff. There has been an acute awareness in ergonomics of radiology
reading rooms in the recent years as the practice style of radiologists has shifted from reading
traditional films to PACS and other digital imaging systems. Along with the shift towards digital
radiology, radiologists are looking at computer monitors and using a computer mouse more and
sitting in a dimmed-light room to review images digitally for a longer period of time than before,
causing a rising number of repetitive strain injuries (RSIs) to take account of eye strain and pain
in the neck, upper and lower back, right shoulder, and right wrist.2 Information that Harvey
introduced in the article correlates the art of ergonomics into the science behind a productive
environment, a satisfied workforce, and high-quality patient care.
Harvey quoted studies from ACR (i.e. “Imaging 3.0 Case Study: Resigning Care”) and
administrators from ergonomics technology companies (i.e. Greg Patrick, president of RedRick
Technologies, ergonomic radiology furniture designer and provider and Carrie Schmitz,
ergonomic and wellness research manager at Ergotron, designer and provider of ergonomic
equipment).2 With all the information presented, nevertheless, there seems to be a lack of
analysis from Harvey. In the footnotes the article, Harvey is indicated as “a freelance writer
based in Wilmington, Delaware”, which makes me question the author’s credibility as he could
be writing an article in any other field of study without expertise in it.2 Furthermore, even though
 Ong 2

Harvey provided links to ACR peer-reviewed journals and names of ergonomics techonology
companies, no references are cited at the end of the article. Additionally, in the last section of the
article, Harvey wrote in a manner as if he was a salesman from RedRick Technologies and
Ergotron pitching details of their latest offerings—it should also be noted that there is a section
for advertising on the homepage of Radiology Today.
I chose this specific article since I find ergonomics interesting and useful. Hence I wanted
to learn more about it in relations to the field of radiation oncology. As a future medical
dosimetrist, I will be spending the vast majority of my work hours sitting in front of a computer
designing radiation therapy treatment plans as do practicing medical dosimetrists. Although I did
not gain much more knowledge about ergonomics than what I have already known, it would be
helpful for others to read this article and increase awareness exponentially for healthcare
facilities to adopt ergonomics interventions.
 Ong 3

1. Lenards, N., Weege, M. Reading and Writing in Radiation Therapy & Medical
Dosimetry. [SoftChalk]. La Crosse, WI: UW-L Medical Dosimetry Program; 2016.
2. Harvey, D. (2017, October). Sit up and take notes. Radiology Today,(18)10, 20.
Retrieved from http://www.radiologytoday.net/archive/rt1017p20.shtml
 Ong 4

Part 2: Professional Journal

For the article from a professional journal, I chose one of the peer-reviewed publications
referenced to in the trade magazine article of Part 1: “Work-Related Injuries of Radiologists and
Possible Ergonomic Solutions: Recommendations from the ACR Commission on Human
Resources” by Gordon Sze, MD, Edward I. Bluth, MD, Claire E. Bender, MD, and Jay R.
Parikh, MD in JACR.1
The article has subsections required of a research article, consisting of abstract,
introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, and references.2 The introduction section
clearly identifies and states the problem. The purpose of the article is to examine the impact of
the transition from traditional film imaging to digital radiology imaging has on radiologists in the
current radiology reading room environment in which results in repetitive strain injuries (RSIs),
emphasizing the importance of implementing ergonomics solutions in the workplace.1
The literature review reported in the article gave background on the problem. For
instance, Boiselle et al cited in the research article stated that as the workload of radiologists
increased to spending more than eight hours daily in front of computers, the symptoms and
diagnoses of RSIs including carpal tunnel syndrome had also multiplied.1 Also specified in the
research article, Thompson et al demonstrated a substantial decrease in RSIs of radiologists after
receiving ergonomic training.1
The measurement instrument of the research design was a survey ranking ergonomic
factors from 1 (the least important) to 5 (the most important) distributed to ten ACR Commission
on Human Resources members. Ergonomic factors included but not limited to lighting, layout,
mouse, noise, chairs, monitors, desk, and reading stations. The research participants were not
sample representative of the population of interest and were not sufficiently large. It was
explained in the methods section that the ACR Commission, “in a time of potentially limited
resources”, utilized literature to determine which ergonomic factors deemed important to
radiologists to incorporate in the questionnaire.1
The results were adequately presented in a table showing the poll of the ten ACR
Commission members on importance of individual ergonomic adjustments. The amount of light
and noise and accessibility of phone of Internet were rated 4.5-5 out of 5. Being able to adjust the
height of chairs was also ranked high. Neckrests, footrests, and headphones had the lowest
average scores.1 The data, including the unexpected results, was appropriately and logically
 Ong 5

evaluated to support the conclusions: ergonomics can not only reduce the frequency and severity
of RSIs from prolonged use of computers and sedentary work of radiologists occurring after
PACS-related activities but also increase the productivity at the same time. The conclusion
section was labeled “Take Home Points” and bullet-pointed, which is informal in my opinion for
a research article to summarize the research.1 As for the reference section, the authors consulted
a total of 32 appropriate sources with most sources dated since the 2000s, some in 1990s, and
one from 1818-1820. It is noted that the JACR website is copyrighted by Elsevier, Inc. and the
content is intended for health professionals.1
Overall, the research article is straightforward and easy to follow. The research design
definitely could have been more reliable with a larger group of participants and provide further
insight if participants were radiologists taking the survey. The fact that the research article
conducted its research on ACR Commission members and is posted on JACR may be biased in
its analysis. I would have liked to learn something new and unfortunately did not as most of the
results were predicable based on existing research studies. Nonetheless, the research article is
effective in accentuating the significance of ergonomics improvements in the workplace.
 Ong 6

1. Sze, Gordon, Bluth, Edward I., Bender, Claire E., Parikh, Jay R. Work-related injuries of
radiologists and possible ergonomic solutions: recommendations from the ACR
Commission on Human Resources. Journal of the American College of Radiology.
2017;14(10):1353-1358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.06.021
2. Lenards, N., Weege, M. Reading and Writing in Radiation Therapy & Medical
Dosimetry. [SoftChalk]. La Crosse, WI: UW-L Medical Dosimetry Program; 2016.
 Ong 7

http://www.radiologytoday.net/archive/rt1017p20.shtml
http://www.radiologytoday.net/about.shtml

- the author quotes from other studies without writing an analysis of the information collect
- at the end of the article, it almost sounded like the author was trying to sell a third-party
vendor to the reader
- it is noted at the end of the article, the author is a freelance writer based in Wilmington,
Delaware, which means the author has no expertise in radiology nor ergodynamics
- radiology today has a section for advertising on the homepage
- no references attached

http://www.jacr.org/article/S1546-1440(17)30731-7/pdf
http://www.jacr.org/article/S1546-1440(17)30731-7/fulltext
http://www.jacr.org/

 to my surprise, I didn’t learn anything new

 survey - only ten participants; most results are predictable based on existing research
studies; however, it is essential to allow radiologists’ participation prior to
implementation as they are the ones affected the most
 references
 inclusion of future study consideration
 participants are from ACR and the publication is JACR


- copyright by Elsevier, Inc.

- on the bottom of the home page
“The content on this site is intended for health professionals.
Advertisements on this site do not constitute a guarantee or endorsement by the journal,
Association, or publisher of the quality or value of such product or of the claims made for
it by its manufacturer.”