Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33750041›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2021

An analysis of radiographer preliminary image evaluation - A focus on common false negatives.

Isobel Alexander-Bates, Michael J Neep, Benjamin Davis, Deborah Starkey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The importance of medical imaging history for medicolegal evaluation.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. The role of quality improvement in radiography.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2021
    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.

Isobel Alexander-BatesDepartment of Medical Imaging, Ipswich General Hospital, Ipswich, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4995-2785
Michael J NeepDepartment of Medical Imaging, Logan Hospital, Meadowbrook, Queensland, Australia.
Benjamin DavisDepartment of Medical Imaging, Logan Hospital, Meadowbrook, Queensland, Australia.
Deborah StarkeySchool of Clinical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Emergency Service, HospitalAdultChildHumansRadiographyClinical Auditdiagnostic imagingemergency departmentpathologyX-rays

Identifiers

PMID33750041
PMCPMC8424337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.