Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27005684›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2016

Chest radiograph reading and recording system: evaluation in frontline clinicians in Zambia.

German Henostroza, Jennifer B Harris, Nzali Kancheya, Venerandah Nhandu, Stable Besa, Robert Musopole, Annika Krüüner, Chisela Chileshe, Ian J Dunn, Stewart E Reid

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

German HenostrozaDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, USA. germanh@uab.edu.
Jennifer B HarrisDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, USA.
Nzali KancheyaCentre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Venerandah NhanduCentre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Stable BesaCentre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Robert MusopoleCentre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Annika KrüünerDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, USA.
Chisela ChileshePrisons Health Services, Ministry of Home Affairs, Lusaka, Zambia.
Ian J DunnDepartment of Radiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Stewart E ReidCentre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia.
Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia · ZMUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical CompetenceAdultFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningObserver VariationPopulation SurveillancePrisonsRadiography, ThoracicReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityTuberculosis, PulmonaryZambiachest radiographChest Radiograph Reading and Recording System (CRRS)x-rayZambia

Identifiers

PMID27005684
PMCPMC4804604
OpenAlexW2310401633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.