Mehr 1

Trade Magazine Analysis

One critical skill when conducting research is the ability to identify credible and

worthwhile sources. To help understand how to correctly choose a reliable source it is beneficial

to compare two different sources; a trade magazine and a professional journal. Throughout this

paper, articles from both a trade magazine and professional journal will be considered for their

material, accuracy, strengths and weaknesses.

The first article comes from Radiology Today which is a trade magazine.¹ The article

“Dose Reduction and Management” written by Dave Yeager explains the importance of lowering

the amount of radiation dose that is received by patients.¹ It gives examples of new technology

and software that has been created to help accomplish this goal.¹ One specific piece of new

technology that is explained in this article is the use of compressed sensing to produce a CT

image.¹ This new way of scanning patients will result in a smaller dose to the patient due to a

multislit collimator with thin openings blocking X-rays and letting only some reach the patient.¹

Compressed scanning then utilizes a software that constructs the portions of the image where the

X-rays were blocked.¹ The article then goes on to discuss the need to make the process of dose

reduction and its documenting consistent throughout all facilities in order to reliably report

patient dose.¹

This article that was found in Radiology Today, had many useful components. The

information that was provided to the reader throughout this article would be beneficial for the

knowledge base of a medical dosimetrist. Learning about new technology and how it can benefit

the patient is always important. When reading this article, dosimetrists would get a simplified

version of what a multistat collimator is so when they see it later in future reports or within the

clinic they have a basic understanding that they can expand upon.¹ Another reason this article is
 Mehr 2

helpful to medical dosimetrists and students is that it stresses the importance of limiting the dose

given to patients and the importance of tracking this dose.¹ No matter where someone is within

their career it is always helpful to review these topics as well as discuss ways in which practices

can become more standardized.

The article may have components that are useful to dosimetrists but it also has strengths

and weaknesses that coincide with trade magazines. One strength of this article is that it has very

interesting content and can therefore spark interest in a wider audience.² The article is written

with more informal language which allows people within different trades to understand the

topics discussed.² The language and content that drives people to read the article can also be

considered a weakness as well. The article was written from a singular viewpoint when

considering the new technology.² This was depicted when the author did not discuss the possible

weaknesses that coincide with compressed sensing and only talked about how positive it could

be for the patient.¹ The researchers quoted within the article are the ones developing the product

and therefore can have a biased opinion about the technology.¹ These examples show that though

the information is interesting it may not be providing the whole picture and therefore could be

inaccurate. A reason the author could be hiding this information is because they are being paid to

try to sell their audience something.² This writing style gives the reader the idea that other parts

of the article could be written through this lens as well.

The article “Dose Radiation and Management” within Radiology Today provided

interesting information to the reader that could be later expanded upon. The issue with this

source was that it has potential bias. Making sure that articles chosen for research are not written

in one viewpoint as well as providing complete information can lead to a better more accurate

paper and findings.

 Mehr 3

References

1. Yeager, D. (2017, April). Dose reduction and management. Radiology Today, (18)4, 24.

Retrieved from http://www.radiologytoday.net/archive/rt0417p24.shtml.

2. Lenards N, Weege M. Reading and Writing in Radiation Therapy & Medical Dosimetry.

[Soft Chalk]. La Crosse, WI: UW-L Medical Dosimetry Program; 2016.

 Mehr 4

Professional Journal (Peer-Reviewed) Analysis

Professional journals serve many purposes when communicating research. Articles within

these journals are based on facts and help to add information to professional fields.¹ When

professional journals are said to be peer-reviewed, they must be looked at by experts within the

field before they are given permission to be published.¹ The authors of a peer-reviewed article do

not receive payment eliminating bias brought on by money.¹ Using professional journals that

contain peer-reviewed articles can benefit researchers because they are based on facts not

opinions and are not motivated by money.

An article titled “An evaluation of the contouring abilities of medical dosimetry students

for the anatomy of a prostate cancer patient” by Kevin Collins within the Medical Dosimetry

journal is a good example of a peer-reviewed professional journal article. Throughout the paper

the researcher is trying to uncover which structures of the male pelvis the participating dosimetry

students are contouring accurately and inaccurately.² Prostate cancer is a major contributor to

male cancer and deaths and that is the problem that sparked this research.² When contouring is

done incorrectly it can lead to critical normal structures exceeding their radiation allowance as

well as it can cause the dose to miss a portion of the intended target.² Background surrounding

this problem was acknowledged throughout the introduction of the article. For instance, the

American Association of Medical Dosimetrists held their yearly meeting in 2010 and conducted

a contouring test to determine dosimetrists ability to accurately contour the prostate.² The results

were varied in accuracy within the group of dosimetrists.² This showed that further research

should be conducted to determine where mistakes in contouring occur in the male pelvis.

The methods used to conduct the research on prostate contouring abilities were clear and

concise. The population that was chosen, fourteen medical dosimetry students, would help to
 Mehr 5

evaluate how well prostate structures were known within the dosimetry community.² The sample

population was a big enough size to gather the data necessary to find which structure was

contoured precisely and which had the most mistakes. These students were given the exact same

male pelvis CT images and were asked to contour the same structures.² The first time they

contoured the structures was after some anatomy review.² They waited a couple months before

reviewing their previous contours and seeing where they made mistakes before contouring the

same structures on the same dataset again in a second session.² When they finished contouring,

their contours were compared to an already accepted set of contours that were evaluated by

experts and considered accurate.² The students two sets of contours were assigned scores out of

100 based on their accuracy with 0.01 cm borders of forgiveness.² This method proved reliable

because the contours that the students work was being compared to was software and human

tested to guarantee its accuracy.²

The experiments resulted in some significant results.² There were two critical structures

that were contoured significantly smaller the second time contouring; the penile bulb and the

rectum.² The prostate had the greatest error percentage with scores of 32.3% and 27.8% for

sessions one and two, respectively.² The bladder had the smallest percentage of error at 1.5% and

1.4% and was contoured the best with scores of 97.921 and 98.311 for sessions one and two,

respectively.² Also the penile bulb was the least precise contour made by students with scores

averaging 9.971 and 28.414 for sessions one and two, respectively.²

These results were expanded upon within the discussion and conclusion. It was noted that

all structures improved in accuracy from session one to session two and that the bladder was the

students best contoured structure while the penile bulb was the worst.² The bladder was said to

be the best contour because it has obvious borders for the students to see while the penile bulb
 Mehr 6

was the worst due to the difficulty distinguishing it on CT slices.² Through this study, Collins

was able to conclude that with direction and teaching of guidelines contouring can become more

accurate which gives rise to better treatment plans for patients.²

The research performed throughout this study remained unbiased and came to accurate

conclusions. The grading of each contour was done based on a standard that was reviewed by

experts and software.² The rules of the grading were planned so that each student was given fair

scores that were based on numerical values.² Both of these strategies made for more accurate and

unbiased research which conclusions could be drawn from. The conclusions from this study were

held up by the data collected which shows their accuracy.² The study was an excellent example

of good research and how a study should be performed.

The whole paper was written in scientific language that was intended for professional

readers.¹ It provided its own unique research that helped to answer an important dosimetry

research question.¹ This paper gave new information to its readers with data to back it up. When

compared to the trade magazine article the professional peer-reviewed journal article was less

biased and had more supporting evidence and formal language.¹

 Mehr 7

References

1. Lenards N, Weege M. Reading and Writing in Radiation Therapy & Medical Dosimetry.

[Soft Chalk]. La Crosse, WI: UW-L Medical Dosimetry Program; 2016.

2. Collins, KS. An evaluation of the contouring abilities of medical dosimetry students for

the anatomy of a prostate cancer. Medical Dosimetry. 2012; 37(3): 245-249. doi:

10.1016/j.meddos.2011.09.003.