ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2013
Assessing the accuracy and certainty in interpreting chest X-rays in the medical division.
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed.
- Blending electronic techniques with traditional teaching methods to enhance chest X-ray interpretation in medical students.PloS one · 2025Trial
- Exploring the use of AI-generated counterfactual chest X-rays to enhance diagnostic learning in medical education.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Article
- Ensemble deep learning architectures for detecting pulmonary tuberculosis in chest X-rays.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- End-to-end deep learning model for the diagnosis and segmentation of primary retroperitoneal neoplasm: a multicenter cohort study.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- ZooCNN: A Zero-Order Optimized Convolutional Neural Network for Pneumonia Classification Using Chest Radiographs.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Multidisciplinary Evaluation of an AI-Based Pneumothorax Detection Model: Clinical Comparison with Physicians in Edge and Cloud Environments.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Four Transformer-Based Deep Learning Classifiers Embedded with an Attention U-Net-Based Lung Segmenter and Layer-Wise Relevance Propagation-Based Heatmaps for COVID-19 X-ray Scans.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- BarlowTwins-CXR: enhancing chest X-ray abnormality localization in heterogeneous data with cross-domain self-supervised learning.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Generative Artificial Intelligence for Chest Radiograph Interpretation in the Emergency Department.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy and Confidence in Management of Forearm and Hand Fractures Among Foundation Doctors in the Accident and Emergency Department: Survey Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Multi-modal image classification of COVID-19 cases using computed tomography and X-rays scans.Intelligent systems with applications · 2023Article
- Assessing and comparing chest radiograph interpretation in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of the Witwatersrand medical school, according to seniority.African journal of thoracic and critical care medicine · 2023Article
- Performance of a Chest Radiography AI Algorithm for Detection of Missed or Mislabeled Findings: A Multicenter Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Still a role for the chest radiograph - humble but helpful!African journal of thoracic and critical care medicine · 2022Article
- EpistoNet: an ensemble of Epistocracy-optimized mixture of experts for detecting COVID-19 on chest X-ray images.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Assessment of final-year medical students' performance in diagnosing critical findings on chest X-ray.Emergency radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The chest X-ray (CXR) is an important diagnostic tool in diagnosing and monitoring a spectrum of diseases. Despite our universal reliance on the CXR, our ability to confidently diagnose and accurately document our findings can be unreliable. We sought to assess the diagnostic accuracy and certainty of making a diagnosis based on 10 short clinical histories with one CXR each. We conclude from our study that specialist registrars (StRs) and consultants scored the highest marks with the highest average certainty levels. Junior trainees felt least certain about making their diagnosis and were less likely to be correct. We recommend that StRs and consultants review all the CXRs requested to ensure accuracy of diagnosis. There also needs to be discussion with the Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board (JRCPTB) about the need of including a separate CXR competency as part of a trainee's generic curriculum on the e-portfolio, something which is currently lacking.
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.