ArticleBMC infectious diseases2016
Chest radiograph reading and recording system: evaluation in frontline clinicians in Zambia.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Symptom- and chest-radiography screening for active pulmonary tuberculosis in HIV-negative adults and adults with unknown HIV status.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Integrating chest radiography-based TB screening and preventive treatment for household contacts in Pakistan: a pilot study.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Subclinical tuberculosis linkage to care and completion of treatment following community-based screening in rural South Africa.BMC global and public health · 2024Article
- Iterative evaluation of mobile computer-assisted digital chest x-ray screening for TB improves efficiency, yield, and outcomes in Nigeria.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Interpretation of Thoracic Radiography Shows Large Discrepancies Depending on the Qualification of the Physician-Quantitative Evaluation of Interobserver Agreement in a Representative Emergency Department Scenario.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Article
- Performance of Qure.ai automatic classifiers against a large annotated database of patients with diverse forms of tuberculosis.PloS one · 2020Article
- Targeted active screening for tuberculosis in Zimbabwe: are field digital chest X-ray ratings reliable?Public health action · 2019Article
- Diagnostic Outcomes After Chest Radiograph Interpretation in Patients With Suspected Tuberculosis and Negative Sputum Smears in a High-Burden Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Tuberculosis Setting.Open forum infectious diseases · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Zambia the vast majority of chest radiographs (CXR) are read by clinical officers who have limited training and varied interpretation experience, meaning lower inter-rater reliability and limiting the usefulness of CXR as a diagnostic tool. In 2010-11, the Zambian Prison Service and Ministry of Health established TB and HIV screening programs in six prisons; screening included digital radiography for all participants. Using front-line clinicians we evaluated sensitivity, specificity and inter-rater agreement for digital CXR interpretation using the Chest Radiograph Reading and Recording System (CRRS).
methodsDigital radiographs were selected from HIV-infected and uninfected inmates who participated in a TB and HIV screening program at two Zambian prisons. Two medical officers (MOs) and two clinical officers (COs) independently interpreted all CXRs. We calculated sensitivity and specificity of CXR interpretations compared to culture as the gold standard and evaluated inter-rater reliability using percent agreement and kappa coefficients.
results571 CXRs were included in analyses. Sensitivity of the interpretation "any abnormality" ranged from 50-70 % depending on the reader and the patients' HIV status. In general, MO's had higher specificities than COs. Kappa coefficients for the ratings of "abnormalities consistent with TB" and "any abnormality" showed good agreement between MOs on HIV-uninfected CXRs and moderate agreement on HIV-infected CXRs whereas the COs demonstrated fair agreement in both categories, regardless of HIV status.
conclusionsSensitivity, specificity and inter-rater agreement varied substantially between readers with different experience and training, however the medical officers who underwent formal CRRS training had more consistent interpretations.
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.