Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31545009›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical radiation sciences2019

Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review.

Andrew Murphy, Ernest Ekpo, Thomas Steffens, Michael J Neep

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Continuing Professional Development - Medical Imaging.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Continuing Professional Development - Medical Imaging.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. See something, say something: the coroner's perspective.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors.

Andrew MurphyDepartment of Medical Imaging, St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7710-6095
Ernest EkpoFaculty of Health Sciences, Discipline of Medical Imaging Science, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, NSW, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6851-0969
Thomas SteffensDepartment of Medical Imaging, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
Michael J NeepDepartment of Medical Imaging, Logan Hospital, Meadowbrook, Qld, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2239-5467

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRadiographyAustraliaClinical CompetenceHumansGeneral radiographyimage interpretationradiographer commentingradiographysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31545009
PMCPMC6920699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.