Talk:Projectional radiography/Archive 1

Article Content
Please add to this article if you can, but understand the article is referring to the practical side of Projectional Radiography. For all other aspects of the vocation, there are links included in the article. Original author - Heather 15:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Glitzy_queen00

I think this page needs to be expanded. It should have a section on different types of PR such as DR, CR, and Film/Screen. Also obsolete forms of radiography and its history. I know this information is provided for on other pages but most of those are minimal and almost stublike. Furthermore this topic should be the parent topic of those. I don't know it seems like the entire radiology range of topics is very disorganized and could use a strong tree to determine what is related to what. Tmckeage 01:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs to be expanded. At the moment it consists almost entirely of lists and technical jargon which is not appropriate for people who wish to gain a general knowledge of plain radiography. Schrodingers cats (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this page need a major overhaul. As a radological technologist, I will do my best to update the page on the principles of projectional radiography, and see what I can do to make the page better. xrtech (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Differences around the world
While this is a good article in places this section (especially the section on the UK) is far from correct. For example:

''Chest - PA Only. Lateral on request by a Radiologist.'' This is incorrect. If not then every-time a cardiologist required a pacer films it might prove a little long-winded a process.

''Cervical Spine - AP and Lateral. Peg projection with trauma only. Obliques and Flexion and Extension on special request''. Incorrect, obliques are still common in many trauma units. (This is especially so when they are used to replace the swimmers view when the normal c-spine view cannot adequately demonstrate the C7/T1 junction. (There are even centers where the standard 5 views are still taken. As far as I recall no NICE guidelines have been given to the contrary.

''Skull - None. Patient goes to CT''. Incorrect (there are far to many trauma centers with Skull Units to be anything else). While CT should be preferred (See NICE) there are patients of course where CT is counter indicated. I think this needs to be mentioned along with the standard views used (OF, OF 30, Townes, etc.

There are others.

Perhaps a re-write of this like the section for the USA? (Might even mention that ribs are no longer routinely projected in the UK, etc. (A brief mention of IRMER also might be useful.

I don't mind doing this if no one has any objections. Anyone have any thoughts?  Tucker talk 03:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do. At this point I think any work on this article would be beneficial. Please let me know if there is any help I can provide. Tmckeage (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

To-do List
Jotting notes:


 * Needs a History section at the bottom
 * References and further reading need to be converted to inline format.
 * The Divisions of the skeleton seems a bit superfluous - could this be somehow merged with the following section as a list of views and how to cover the whole human body?

more later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Plain film vs. Plane film
I have seen both "plain film" and "plane film" terms used. "Plane film" makes much more sense to me because they are planar projections (i.e. the image is projected onto a 2D plane). The one explanation I've heard for "plain film" is that it describes a radiograph without contrast, so it is "plain". Any ideas? Should both terms be included? Wantdouble (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to see any reference to either terms removed. It's anachronistic because film is the least used form of creating images these days, plain is also misleading as the film has often been created with specific image intensifiers in mind. Plane is not discriminant as the output from a CT is often represented on a 2-D computer screen. At most I could see this term going into a history section, but only if properly sourced.--Tmckeage (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree  Tucker talk 20:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

AP and Lat Elbow
Perhaps I am being a tad pedantic but is an AP/lat pediatric elbow  the best projection to illustrate this article? And if so, should it not be cited as such?  Tucker talk 20:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Medical Training
In the prologue to the article is the statement "highly trained professionals". This term is ambiguous, as it infers a term of education that simply does not exist. While the use of X-ray equipment, and its operation are regulated, and the operators are trained in a formal setting, it does not specify either the amount of training nor the level of competency in the operation of the equipment. Different countries have differing names for similar occupations. Richard416282 (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Terminology
It seems like there's a lot of terminology or jargon used in this article with which a person who hasn't had much to do with radiography might be unfamiliar. Should there be better definition or explanation of some of the radiography-specific terms in the article? WiiWillieWiki 18:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Anatomically Correct Presentation of Films
There is a mild amount of debate on this subject, and it appears people may have been trained a certain way whereas other people may have been trained in a completely different way of presenting film. I'm sure I can work on getting this published, but in the meantime if anyone else wishes to, help yourself.

Ex:

PA Chest: left side of chest is on the right side of the monitor.

AP Forearm: Ulnar side of left forearm is on right side of monitor, distal portion of forearm at top of monitor.

PA Hand: 5th digit of left hand on right side of monitor, fingertips at top of monitor.

I'm sure there's a more consistent way of presenting this information. I simply wanted to get the idea out there for others to interject. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankga123 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that a section should be created on the image critique/image efficacy criteria for each projection? I really like this idea. I agree that this isn't standardised, every imaging department will have different protocols obviously, and even then some radiographers prefer to modify their technique per patient to meet their individual needs, for example I've worked in departments where Mortice/Mortise view ankles are simply critiqued as AP Ankles and vice-versa; AP + Lat Thoracolumbar spine projections which include various vertebral levels depending on the nature of their complaint, etc. As per your suggestions:
 * PA Chest: Always horizontally inverted so that the left aspect of the thorax appears on the right side of the image as per an AP Chest. This is a standardised view so that dextrocardia and situs inversus are not misdiagnosed.
 * Upper Limb Orientation: Hands and wrists are orientated so that the distal aspect is towards the uppermost portion of the image. Whereas Forearm and proximal projections are orientated so that the proximal aspect is towards the uppermost portion of the image. C h r i s ☮ (Talk) 10:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Rename to Plain radiography

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Nomination is unclear if this is to be moved and then broadened in scope, or if a separate article should actually be created instead. Brad v  05:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Projectional radiography → Plain radiography – According to Ngram, usage of the term "projectional radiography" is almost nonexistent, while "plain radiography" and "plain X-ray" are more common. I've seen several meanings of "plain radiography": I think the article should then state that it deals with "plain" radiography in all of these senses combined. We really need an article for plain radiography, since a lot of diagnosis sections need a link to it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Radiography without a radiocontrast agent
 * Radiography, without the use of computed tomography
 * Radiography that generates single static images, as contrasted to fluoroscopy


 * Oppose– the rationale seems confused, as it states that "plain radiography" is a very ambiguous term, and this may be why it's so common. I don't see how the different meanings could be covered in one article, or how that would help with articles to need to link to what they mean. Dicklyon (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.