ArticleUltrasound (Leeds, England)2022
Image and report quality in non-obstetric ultrasound examinations undertaken by sonographers: Results of an audit of 3731 cases.
Article in Ultrasound (Leeds, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scanning the evidence: A pilot study evaluating the accuracy of sonographer reporting in the Republic of Ireland.Ultrasound (Leeds, England) · 2026Article
- Nationwide data-driven quality improvement in ultrasound medicine: insights from an indicator-based initiative in China.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Diversity of current ultrasound practice within and outside radiology departments with a vision for 20 years into the future: a position paper of the ESR ultrasound subcommittee.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- Embedding new technology into clinical ultrasound practice: Is role extension for sonographers the key to improving patient pathways?Ultrasound (Leeds, England) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis paper reports the results of a rolling audit of sonographer-performed non-obstetric ultrasound examinations undertaken between 2010 and 2020 in a large University Teaching Hospital Ultrasound Department in the United Kingdom. We believe that this represents the largest published audit of sonographer non-obstetric ultrasound examination quality.
methodsRandom samples of sonographer ultrasound examinations were regularly and systematically audited by consultant-level ultrasound practitioners through review of soft copy images and reports. Examination and report quality were assessed against an internal audit standard in 3731 patients over an 11-year period and also against externally set audit standards in 3186 patients over a nine-year period.
resultsBoth image and report quality exceeded externally set audit standards in all nine years of audit. In the internal audit, the quality standard just failed to be met for the first five years of audit but was achieved in all the subsequent six years.
conclusionThis audit provides further information on the quality and safety of sonographer-led ultrasound service delivery within a service that has quality safeguards, readily available support and an active education programme. It is used not only to provide assurance to patients, clinicians, managers and commissioners of this service but also to direct individual professional development and drive an iterative process of quality improvement.
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.