SynthesisJournal of medical radiation sciences2019
Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2019Pooled it
- Preliminary Clinical Evaluation in Cross-Sectional Imaging: A Qualitative Inquiry Into the Ethical Considerations in the Era of Artificial Intelligence.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Radiographer Preliminary Image Evaluation Accuracy in Interpreting Paediatric Trauma Radiographs.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Radiologist workforce challenges and the burden of image interpretation in Ghana: Perspectives of frontline doctors and implications for healthcare delivery.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Perspectives of Physical Therapists in Saudi Arabia on radiological interpretation: attitudes, engagement, and educational needs.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Assessing Fracture Detection: A Comparison of Minimal-Resource and Standard-Resource Plain Radiographic Interpretations.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Preliminary image evaluation performance of radiographers in one New Zealand District: a 6-month prospective study.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- The evolution of radiographers interpreting radiographs in Australia and New Zealand: Nomenclature matters.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- Continuing Professional Development - Medical Imaging.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- Workload as a predictor of radiographer preliminary image evaluation accuracy.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- Continuing Professional Development - Medical Imaging.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- ePortfolios: Enhancing confidence in student radiographers' communication of radiographic anatomy and pathology. A cross-sectional study.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- See something, say something: the coroner's perspective.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- Impact of Education and Experience on Radiographers' Ability to Diagnose Acute Appendicitis: A Survey in Private Malaysian Hospitals.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2024Article
- Optimizing integrated imaging service delivery by tier in low-resource health systems.Insights into imaging · 2021Article
- An analysis of radiographer preliminary image evaluation - A focus on common false negatives.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2021Article
- Computed tomography technologist notes in PACS to radiologists: what are they telling us and how does it increase value?Abdominal radiology (New York) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRadiographer image evaluation methods such as the preliminary image evaluation (PIE), a formal comment describing radiographers' findings in radiological images, are embedded in the contemporary radiographer role within Australia. However, perceptions surrounding both the capacity for Australian radiographers to adopt PIE and the barriers to its implementation are highly variable and seldom evidence-based. This paper systematically reviews the literature to examine radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers and the barriers to implementation.
methodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were used to systematically review articles via Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, ScienceDirect and Informit. Articles were deemed eligible for inclusion if they were English language, peer-reviewed and explored radiographic image interpretation by radiographers in the context of the Australian healthcare system. Letters to the editor, opinion pieces, reviews and reports were excluded.
resultsA total of 926 studies were screened for relevance, 19 articles met the inclusion criteria. The 19 articles consisted of 11 cohort studies, seven cross-sectional surveys and one randomised control trial. Studies exploring radiographers' image interpretation performance utilised a variety of methodological designs with accuracy, sensitivity and specificity values ranging from 57 to 98%, 45 to 98% and 68 to 98%, respectively. Primary barriers to radiographic image evaluation by radiographers included lack of accessible educational resources and support from both radiologists and radiographers.
conclusionAustralian radiographers can undertake PIE; however, educational and clinical support barriers limit implementation. Access to targeted education and a clear definition of radiographers' image evaluation role may drive a wider acceptance of radiographer image evaluation in Australia.
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.