Literature DB >> 11893633

Review article: methodological standards in radiographer plain film reading performance studies.

S Brealey1, A J Scally, N B Thomas.   

Abstract

The objectives of this paper are to raise awareness of the methodological standards that can affect the quality of radiographer plain-film reading performance studies and to determine the frequency with which these standards are fulfilled. Multiple search methods identified 30 such studies from between 1971 and the end of June 1999. The percentage of studies that fulfilled criteria for the 10 methodological standards were as follows. (1) Performance of a sample size calculation, 3%; (2) definition of a normal and abnormal report, 97%; (3) description of the sequence of events through which films passed before reporting, 94%; (4) analysis of individual groups of observers within a combination of groups, 50% (5) appropriate choice of reference standard, 80%; (6) appropriate choice of arbiter, 57%; (7) appropriate use of a control, 22%; (8) analysis of pertinent clinical subgroups, e.g. body areas, patient type, 44%; (9) availability of data for re-calculation, 59%; and (10) presentation of indeterminate results, 69%. These findings indicate variation in the application of the methodological standards to studies of radiographer's film reading performance. Careful consideration of these standards is an essential component of study quality and hence the validity of the evidence base used to underpin radiographic reporting policy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11893633     DOI: 10.1259/bjr.75.890.750107

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


  4 in total

1.  CT sinus and facial bones reporting by radiographers: findings of an accredited postgraduate programme.

Authors:  Paul Lockwood
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 2.419

2.  Radiographers' professional knowledge regarding parameters and safety issues in plain radiography: a questionnaire survey.

Authors:  A R Farajollahi; D F Fouladi; M Ghojazadeh; A Movafaghi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Knowledge of CT exposure parameters among Norwegian student radiographers.

Authors:  Sundaran Kada
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 2.463

4.  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
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.