ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2021
An analysis of radiographer preliminary image evaluation - A focus on common false negatives.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Building Research Capacity in Medical Radiation Sciences Through University-Clinical Partnerships: A Commentary on Working Smarter, Not Harder.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- The importance of medical imaging history for medicolegal evaluation.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Article
- An Analysis of Radiographers' False Preliminary Image Evaluation Comments in One New Zealand District.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Radiographer Preliminary Image Evaluation Accuracy in Interpreting Paediatric Trauma Radiographs.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Risk-benefit analysis of a multi-site radiographer comment model for emergency departments.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2025Article
- Preliminary image evaluation performance of radiographers in one New Zealand District: a 6-month prospective study.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence and radiographer preliminary image evaluation: What might the future hold for radiographers providing x-ray interpretation in the acute setting?Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- Analysing false-positive errors when Australian radiographers use preliminary image evaluation.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- A revolutionary acute subdural hematoma detection based on two-tiered artificial intelligence model.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2023Article
- An analysis of radiographer preliminary image evaluation - A focus on common false negatives.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2021Article
- The role of quality improvement in radiography.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 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
introductionPreliminary image evaluation (PIE) is a mechanism whereby radiographers provide a preliminary evaluation of whether pathology is present in their radiographs, typically acquired within the emergency department (ED). PIE provides referrers with a timely communication of pathology prior to the availability of a radiology report. The purpose of this study was to determine the most common radiographer PIE false-negative interpretations.
methodsEach month over a two-year period, 100 PIEs of adult and paediatric patients were randomly reviewed in a metropolitan hospital ED. The radiographer's PIE was compared with the radiologist's report and categorised into basic quality indicators; true positive, true negative, false positive and false negative. The anatomical regions which most commonly indicated a false-negative interpretation were further analysed.
results2402 cases were reviewed which resulted in an overall PIE accuracy of 88.7%. Wrists, hands, phalanges (upper), ankles, feet and phalanges (lower) reporting the highest false-negative or false-negative/true-positive interpretations (60/116). Of the 60 false-negative PIEs, 68 pathologies were identified. 41.1% (28/68) of the pathology not identified were in the phalanges. Within these regions, examinations with multiple injuries commonly reported false negatives (17/60).
conclusionsThis study demonstrated the most common false-negative radiographer PIEs were within the upper and lower distal extremities. Specifically, the phalanges and examinations demonstrating multiple injuries reported high levels of misinterpretation. The misinterpretation in multi-injury examinations could be attributed to 'Subsequent Search Miss (SSM)' error. These results provide valuable insights into areas of emphasis when providing image interpretation education.
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.