ArticleThe British journal of radiology2011
Comparing the accuracy of initial head CT reporting by radiologists, radiology trainees, neuroradiographers and emergency doctors.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rethinking Radiology: An Active Learning Curriculum for Head Computed Tomography Interpretation.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2022Trial
- Are Advanced Clinical Practitioners perfectly placed to re-report neuroimages to support clinical diagnosis of dementia?International journal for advancing practice · 2023Article
- Interpretation of Emergency CT Scans of the Head in Trauma: Neurosurgeon vs Radiologist.World journal of surgery · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDemand for out-of-hours cranial CT imaging is increasing and some departments have considered addressing this shortfall by allowing non-radiologists to provisionally report imaging studies. The aim of this work was to assess whether it is appropriate for non-radiologists to report head CTs by comparing the misreporting rates of those who regularly report head CTs with two groups of non-radiologists who do not usually report them: neuroradiographers and emergency doctors.
methods62 candidates were asked to report 30 head CTs, two-thirds of which were abnormal, and the results were compared by non-parametric statistical analysis.
resultsThere was no evidence of a difference in the score between neuroradiographers, neuroradiologists and general consultant radiologists. Neuroradiographers scored significantly higher than senior radiology trainees, and the emergency doctors scored least well.
conclusionThe results of this preliminary study show that appropriately trained neuroradiographers are competent at reporting the range of abnormalities assessed with this test and that their misreporting rates are similar to those who already independently report these studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.