ArticlePublic health action2015
Impact of a training course on the quality of chest radiography to diagnose pulmonary tuberculosis.
Article in Public health action, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
settingSocio-economically underprivileged urban areas in the Philippines.
objectiveTo assess the performance of radiological technicians (RTs) 3 years after their participation in a training course to improve the quality of chest X-ray (CXR) and to test a monitoring visit after the course.
designA cross-sectional and observational study including on-site monitoring of X-ray facilities in Manila and Quezon City and assessment of CXR films taken by 23 RTs who previously attended a training course in 2009 or 2010. The sum of the assessment scores for each of six assessment factors at four points, i.e., before and after the training course that had been previously analysed, and before and after the monitoring visits that were currently analysed, were compared.
resultsTwo assessment sum scores, identification mark or patient positioning, did not show significant differences. However, assessment of density, contrast, sharpness and artefact significantly improved after the training course, and before and after the monitoring visit, compared with before the training. There were no significant differences in any of the assessment factors before and after the monitoring visits.
conclusionThe training course appears to have had a long-term effect on maintaining CXR quality. The post-training monitoring visit did not significantly improve CXR quality.
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.