Search

The most important clues to narrow differential diagnosis of benign bone tumors in the pediatric population include patient age, location of the lesion, number of lesions, type of matrix, margin features, and presence of periosteal reaction and extraosseous extension; a systemic imaging approach helps guide clinical management and prevent unnecessary patient anxiety and medical intervention.

Recent advances in prenatal imaging have made possible the in utero diagnosis of cleft lip and palate and associated deformities. Postnatal diagnosis of cleft lip is made clinically, but imaging still plays a role in detection of associated abnormalities, surgical treatment planning, and screening for or surveillance of secondary deformities. This article describes the clinical entities of cleft lip with or without cleft palate (CLP) and isolated cleft palate and documents their prenatal and postnatal appearances at radiography, ultrasonography (US), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and computed tomography (CT). Imaging protocols and findings for prenatal screening, detection of associated anomalies, and evaluation of secondary deformities throughout life are described and illustrated. CLP and isolated cleft palate are distinct entities with shared radiologic appearances. Prenatal US and MR imaging can depict clefting of the lip or palate and associated anomalies. While two- and three-dimensional US often can depict cleft lip, visualization of cleft palate is more difficult, and repeat US or fetal MR imaging should be performed if cleft palate is suspected. Postnatal imaging can assist in identifying associated abnormalities and dentofacial deformities. Dentofacial sequelae of cleft lip and palate include missing and supernumerary teeth, oronasal fistulas, velopharyngeal insufficiency, hearing loss, maxillary growth restriction, and airway abnormalities. Secondary deformities can often be found incidentally at imaging performed for other purposes, but detection is necessary because they may have considerable implications for the patient.

The end-user of mobile device apps in the practice of clinical radiology should be aware of security measures that prevent unauthorized use of the device, including passcode policies, methods for dealing with failed login attempts, network manager-controllable passcode enforcement, and passcode enforcement for the protection of the mobile device itself. Protection of patient data must be in place that complies with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and U.S. Federal Information Processing Standards. Device security measures for data protection include methods for locally stored data encryption, hardware encryption, and the ability to locally and remotely clear data from the device. As these devices transfer information over both local wireless networks and public cell phone networks, wireless network security protocols, including wired equivalent privacy and Wi-Fi protected access, are important components in the chain of security. Specific virtual private network protocols, Secure Sockets Layer and related protocols (especially in the setting of hypertext transfer protocols), native apps, virtual desktops, and nonmedical commercial off-the-shelf apps require consideration in the transmission of medical data over both private and public networks. Enterprise security and management of both personal and enterprise mobile devices are discussed. Finally, specific standards for hardware and software platform security, including prevention of hardware tampering, protection from malicious software, and application authentication methods, are vital components in establishing a secure platform for the use of mobile devices in the medical field.

Bibliometric parameters have become an important part of modern assessment of academic productivity. These parameters exist for the purpose of evaluating authors (publication count, citation count, h-index, m-quotient, hc-index, e-index, g-index, i-10 [i-n] index) and journals (impact factor, Eigenfactor, article influence score, SCImago journal rank, source-normalized impact per paper). Although in recent years there has been a proliferation of bibliometric parameters, the true meaning and appropriate use of these parameters is generally not well understood. Effective use of existing and emerging bibliometric tools can aid in assessment of academic productivity, including readiness for promotions and other awards. However, if not properly understood, the data can be misinterpreted and may be subject to manipulation. Familiarity with bibliometric parameters will aid in their effective implementation in the review of authors-whether individuals or groups-and journals, as well as their possible use in the promotions review process, maximizing the effectiveness of bibliometric analysis.