Working thesis statement: Interventional radiology is a poorly established field with many unexplored uses as well as possible occupational risks.
Bilello, J., Patel, S., Potluri, V., Gill, G. S., & Bagherpour, A. N. (2020). Characterizing the online presence of interventional radiologists: A potential marketing opportunity. Cureus, 12(7), 1-7. Web.
The study primarily focuses on assessing the online presence of interventional radiologists or IRs. The findings show that a vast majority of IRs come from third-party websites, equivalent to almost 70%, whereas only 27% are from hospitals or health systems. Such a state of affairs presents a problem since physicians have no access to or control over these websites, which means that digital opportunities exist for physicians. The source has a low to moderate level of significance because it focuses on the online presence of IRs. It is not fully relevant to the selected topic due to its heavy focus on the digital.
Miller, D. L., Vano, E., Bartal, G., Balter, S., Dixon, R., Padovani, R., Schueler, B., Cardella, J. F., & Baere, T. (2010). Occupational radiation protection in interventional radiology: A joint guideline of the cardiovascular and interventional radiology society of europe and the society of interventional radiology. CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, 33, 230-239. Web.
The article analyzes the concerns about occupational exposure to radiation among interventional radiologists. Since IRs are more likely to be exposed to high doses of radiation, radiation protective tools need to be used, such as shielding and personal protective devices. Minimizing the exposure time, having proper training, and using these tools should be supported by the management. The research is highly relevant because it addresses the occupational risks among IRs. It is significant because many sources of excessive dosage are described with plausible methods of prevention or minimization of radiation.
Shaw, A., Speirs, A. J. D., & Howlett, D. (2010). Current applications of interventional radiology. British Journal of Hospital Medicine, 71(11), 619-625. Web.
The article mainly addresses the application of interventional radiology with a detailed assessment of its strengths and weaknesses. The former includes minimal invasiveness, increased postoperative mobility, reduced postoperative pain, low recovery time, outpatient format, and the lack of major risks. However, interventional radiology is severely limited by resources and equipment, ionizing radiation is still harmful, and there is a loss of depth in observation. The study is significant because it evaluates interventional radiology. It is relevant because it provides comprehensive information on all its applications.
References
Bilello, J., Patel, S., Potluri, V., Gill, G. S., & Bagherpour, A. N. (2020). Characterizing the online presence of interventional radiologists: A potential marketing opportunity.Cureus, 12(7), 1-7. Web.
Miller, D. L., Vano, E., Bartal, G., Balter, S., Dixon, R., Padovani, R., Schueler, B., Cardella, J. F., & Baere, T. (2010). Occupational radiation protection in interventional radiology: A joint guideline of the cardiovascular and interventional radiology society of europe and the society of interventional radiology.CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, 33, 230-239. Web.
Shaw, A., Speirs, A. J. D., & Howlett, D. (2010). Current applications of interventional radiology. British Journal of Hospital Medicine, 71(11), 619-625. Web.