RADI1131 Medical Imaging Methods 2 Assessment Task 2: Written Assessment - Systematic Literature Review This assignment contributes 30% of the overall mark. Due Date: Week 4 Friday 16th August at...

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Calibri; min-height: 14.0px} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Calibri} span.s1 {font: 12.0px Calibri}

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Calibri; min-height: 14.0px} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Calibri} span.s1 {font: 12.0px Calibri}


RADI1131 Medical Imaging Methods 2 Assessment Task 2: Written Assessment - Systematic Literature Review This assignment contributes 30% of the overall mark. Due Date: Week 4 Friday 16th August at 23:59pm You have a choice of 2 topics: 1. Compare and contrast plain radiographic imaging vs CT techniques in the evaluation and detection of scaphoid fractures. 2. Are micturating cystourethrograms still the gold standard in paediatric urinary reflux? Objectives: In completing this assignment you will demonstrate your ability to search and critically appraise the academic literature relating to either of the topics above. You will demonstrate an understanding of relevant issues relating to the chosen topic, as well as the impact on patient outcomes. Indicative Content • Introduction • Method (outline the search strategy) • Review  Current practice (including advantages and challenges from a range of perspectives e.g. patient outcomes, department resources)  Impact on the patient and their potential health outcomes  Suggest potential future research and development • Discussion • Conclusion • References (minimum 20) • 2000 words (+/- 10%) • APA referencing referencing (in-text citations and reference list) Submission:  You will submit your assignment in report format via Turnitin on Canvas.  Any further submission details will be announced on Canvas. RADI1131 Medical Imaging Methods 2 Learning Outcome Below the standard required for a passing grade Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction 4. Apply critical thinking and appraisal skills to a wide range of current literature Explanation of underpinning concepts is minimal and/or not clear. Little attempt at identification of positive and negative aspects. No discussion of patient impact Explanation of underpinning concepts is mostly clear with main elements identified. Some positive and negative aspects evaluated including limited explanation of patient impact Explanation and reflection is clear and covers all aspects of selected topic. Main positive and negative aspects evaluated including explanation of patient impact Detailed and well- written explanation and reflection on all elements of selected topic. Evaluation addresses all positive and negative aspects including detailed discussion of patient impact Highly detailed and exceptionally well- written explanation and evaluation of selected topic. In- depth evaluation of all positive and negative aspects including highly detailed discussion of patient impact. 5. Select appropriate methods of enquiry to gather and effectively utilise peer reviewed literature to support a logical argument in an academic piece of writing. Poor selection and/or number of peer reviewed journals. Little attempt at identification of positive and negative aspects to support a logical argument with no attempt to appraise sources. Limited selection and/or number of peer reviewed literature journals. Some positive and negative aspects evaluated to support a logical argument with little attempt to appraise sources. Adequate selection and/or number of peer reviewed literature journals. Main positive and negative aspects evaluated to support a logical argument with some attempt to appraise sources. Very good selection and number of peer reviewed literature journals. Evaluation demonstrates some balance and addresses all positive and negative aspects to support a logical argument with good attempt to appraise sources. Excellent selection and number of peer reviewed literature journals. In-depth evaluation and well balanced writing of all positive and negative aspects to support a logical argument with excellent appraisal of sources.