Literature DB >> 11387147

Bias in plain film reading performance studies.

S Brealey1, A J Scally.   

Abstract

Radiographers and other healthcare professionals are becoming increasingly involved in radiological reporting, for instance plain radiographs, mammography and ultrasound. Systematic reviews of research evidence can help to assimilate a knowledge base by ordering and evaluating the available evidence on the reporting accuracy of different professional groups. This article reviews the biases that can undermine the results of plain film reading performance studies. These biases are subdivided into three categories. The first category refers to the selection of subjects, including both films and professionals, and covers the validity of generalizing results beyond the study population. The other two categories are concerned with study design and the interpretation both of films and of reports and the effect on study validity. An understanding of these biases is essential when designing such studies and when interpreting the results of existing studies.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11387147     DOI: 10.1259/bjr.74.880.740307

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  8 in total

1.  Proposed graphical system of evaluating disc-condyle displacements of the temporomandibular joint in MRI.

Authors:  R Benbelaïd; B Fleiter; A Zouaoui; J F Gaudy
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2005-10-07       Impact factor: 1.246

Review 2.  [Systematic errors in clinical studies : A comprehensive survey].

Authors:  W A Golder
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.059

Review 3.  [Systematic errors in clinical studies : A comprehensive survey].

Authors:  W A Golder
Journal:  Z Rheumatol       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.372

4.  Variability in interpretation of chest radiographs among Russian clinicians and implications for screening programmes: observational study.

Authors:  Y Balabanova; R Coker; I Fedorin; S Zakharova; S Plavinskij; N Krukov; R Atun; F Drobniewski
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-08-13

5.  Establishing a gold standard for test sets: variation in interpretive agreement of expert mammographers.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Melissa L Anderson; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist; Berta Geller; Andy Bogart; Robert A Smith; Edward A Sickles; Barbara Monsees; Lawrence Bassett; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  The methodological quality of three foundational law enforcement Drug Influence Evaluation validation studies.

Authors:  Greg Kane
Journal:  J Negat Results Biomed       Date:  2013-11-04

7.  STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Jérémie F Cohen; Daniël A Korevaar; Douglas G Altman; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Lotty Hooft; Les Irwig; Deborah Levine; Johannes B Reitsma; Henrica C W de Vet; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-11-14       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review.

Authors:  Andrew Murphy; Ernest Ekpo; Thomas Steffens; Michael J Neep
Journal:  J Med Radiat Sci       Date:  2019-09-23
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.