ArticleDer Radiologe2020
[Quality of findings, interpretation, and self-assessment of readers of chest x-rays acquired in one plane depending on the use of an anatomical viewing scheme and reader expertise].
Article in Der Radiologe, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Heart and lung in X-ray images : Lost art (?)].Der Radiologe · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo objectify effects of an anatomical viewing scheme on the respective correctness of (a) findings, (b) interpretations, and (c) self-assessments of readers in chest radiographs acquired in one plane and the assessment of other influencing factors. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn all, 20 radiologists with 3-60 months of full-time radiography experience evaluated 12 chest radiographs of varying difficulty: once with and once without using an anatomical viewing scheme with at least 1 month in between (n = 480). In consensus of 3 radiological experts (a) and (b) were determined by means of a current computed tomography. The self-assessment (c) of readers was queried.
results(a) Findings were either missed or not described in 21%. Another 20% were recognized, but incorrectly described, (b) 62% of interpretations and 31% of derived clinical consequences were wrong and (c) in 39% of items the readers overestimated themselves. Experts were faster and better than novices, but for the scheme usage no further significant differences were detected (p > 0.5, respectively). The most pronounced effect was found in comparison with the routine report produced by the joint evaluation of novices and experts being clearly superior even to the expert study results (a), (b) and (c) alone (p < 0.001, respectively).
conclusionReporting of chest X‑rays acquired in one plane was often incomplete or even wrong, and the evaluators overestimated themselves, which was not influenced by the use of the anatomical viewing scheme. Since errors between the evaluators sometimes differed greatly, duplicate evaluation of the radiographs by two different radiologists, which is already the case in many training facilities, may possibly be advisable in general.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32248250What 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.