ArticleIndustrial health2018
Assessment of physicians' proficiency in reading chest radiographs for pneumoconiosis, based on a 60-film examination set with two factors constituting eight indices.
Article in Industrial health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Asian Intensive Reader of Pneumoconiosis program: examination for certification during 2008-2020.Industrial health · 2024Article
- Inter-observer agreement and accuracy in classifying radiographs for pneumoconiosis among Asian physicians taking AIR Pneumo certification examination.Industrial health · 2022Article
- International Classification of the Pneumoconiosis Radiograph Reader Training in Turkey.Turkish thoracic journal · 2020Article
- Progress in educational program for diagnosis of occupational respiratory disease in Japan -Activity of Asian Intensive Reader of Pneumoconioses (AIR Pneumo).Journal of occupational health · 2020Article
- Radiographic diagnosis of Pneumoconioses by AIR Pneumo-trained physicians: Comparison with low-dose thin-slice computed tomography.Journal of occupational health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 15 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two hundred and thirty-three individuals read chest x-ray images (CXR) in the Asian Intensive Reader of Pneumoconiosis (AIR Pneumo) workshop. Their proficiency in reading CXR for pneumoconiosis was calculated using eight indices (X1-X8), as follows: sensitivity (X1) and specificity (X2) for pneumoconiosis; sensitivity (X3) and specificity (X4) for large opacities; sensitivity (X5) and specificity (X6) for pleural plaques; profusion increment consistency (X7); and consistency for shape differentiation (X8). For these eight indices, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Scheffe's multiple comparison were conducted on six groups, based on the participants' specialty: radiology, respiratory medicine, industrial medicine, public health, general internal medicine, and miscellaneous physicians. Our analysis revealed that radiologists had a significant difference in the mean scores of X3, X5, and X8, compared with those of all groups, excluding radiologists. In the factor analysis, X1, X3, X5, X7, and X8 constituted Factor 1, and X2, X4, and X6 constituted Factor 2. With regard to the factor scores of the six participant groups, the mean scores of Factor 1 of the radiologists were significantly higher than those of all groups, excluding radiologists. The two factors and the eight indices may be used to appropriately assess specialists' proficiency in reading CXR.
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.