Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18779982›Full record

ArticleEmergency radiology2009

Accuracy of chest radiograph interpretation by emergency physicians.

Zohair Al aseri

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency radiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Iatrogenic Perforation of the Left Ventricle during Insertion of a Chest Drain.The Korean journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2013
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Zohair Al aseriDepartment of Emergency Medicine, King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. zohairalaseri@yahoo.com

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chest radiographs are one of the most complex imaging modalities to interpret. The objective of this study was to assess how accurately emergency physicians interpreted chest radiographs in relation to radiologist reports. Radiological descriptions of chest radiographs from 667 emergency department (ED) patients, aged 14 to 84 years, were retrospectively reviewed. The overall level of agreement and agreement for different categories (congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and other) were assessed in 312 cases for which reports were available. Statistical analysis was done using the chi-square test, and interobserver agreement was calculated. The proportion of agreement between emergency physician and radiologist reports for normal, congestive heart failure, and pneumonia cases was 84.3%, 41.4%, and 41.4%, respectively. Emergency department physicians frequently missed specific radiographic abnormalities, and there was considerable discrepancy between their interpretations and those of trained radiologists. The agreement for some diagnostic categories such as pneumonia and congestive heart failure was low. This study's findings emphasize the need for improving interpretive skills among ED physicians.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCanadaClinical CompetenceEmergency MedicineEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHeart FailureHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysiciansPneumoniaRadiography, Thoracic

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.