Nick Woznitza1, Keith Piper2, Stephen Burke3, Graham Bothamley4. 1. Radiology Department, Homerton University Hospital, Homerton Row, London E9 6SR, United Kingdom; School of Allied Health Professions, Canterbury Christ Church University, North Holmes Road, Canterbury, Kent CT1 1QU, United Kingdom. Electronic address: nicholas.woznitza@nhs.net. 2. School of Allied Health Professions, Canterbury Christ Church University, North Holmes Road, Canterbury, Kent CT1 1QU, United Kingdom. 3. Radiology Department, Homerton University Hospital, Homerton Row, London E9 6SR, United Kingdom. 4. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Homerton University Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Chest X-rays (CXR) are one of the most frequently requested imaging examinations and are fundamental to many patient pathways. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of CXR interpretation by reporting radiographers (technologists). METHODS: A cohort of consultant radiologists (n = 10) and reporting radiographers (technologists; n = 11) interpreted a bank (n = 106) of adult CXRs that contained a range of pathologies. Jack-knife alternate free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) methodology was used to determine the performance of the observers (JAFROC v4.2). A noninferiority approach was used, with a predefined margin of clinical insignificance of 10% of average consultant radiologist diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy of the reporting radiographers (figure of merit = 0.828, 95% confidence interval 0.808-0.847) was noninferior to the consultant radiologists (figure of merit = 0.788, 95% confidence interval 0.766-0.811), P < .0001. CONCLUSIONS: With appropriate postgraduate education, reporting radiographers are able to interpret CXRs at a level comparable to consultant radiologists.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Chest X-rays (CXR) are one of the most frequently requested imaging examinations and are fundamental to many patient pathways. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of CXR interpretation by reporting radiographers (technologists). METHODS: A cohort of consultant radiologists (n = 10) and reporting radiographers (technologists; n = 11) interpreted a bank (n = 106) of adult CXRs that contained a range of pathologies. Jack-knife alternate free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) methodology was used to determine the performance of the observers (JAFROC v4.2). A noninferiority approach was used, with a predefined margin of clinical insignificance of 10% of average consultant radiologist diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy of the reporting radiographers (figure of merit = 0.828, 95% confidence interval 0.808-0.847) was noninferior to the consultant radiologists (figure of merit = 0.788, 95% confidence interval 0.766-0.811), P < .0001. CONCLUSIONS: With appropriate postgraduate education, reporting radiographers are able to interpret CXRs at a level comparable to consultant radiologists.
Authors: Nick Woznitza; Rebecca Steele; Keith Piper; Stephen Burke; Susan Rowe; Angshu Bhowmik; Sue Maughn; Kate Springett Journal: J Med Radiat Sci Date: 2018-05-27
Authors: Sam M Janes; Helen Hall; Mamta Ruparel; Samantha L Quaife; Jennifer L Dickson; Carolyn Horst; Sophie Tisi; James Batty; Nicholas Woznitza; Asia Ahmed; Stephen Burke; Penny Shaw; May Jan Soo; Magali Taylor; Neal Navani; Angshu Bhowmik; David R Baldwin; Stephen W Duffy; Anand Devaraj; Arjun Nair Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-05-14 Impact factor: 7.034