ArticleInsights into imaging2022
The assessment of image quality and diagnostic value in X-ray images: a survey on radiographers' reasons for rejecting images.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inter-Group Agreement in Chest Radiographic Quality Assessment: Comparing Final-Year Students and Experienced Radiographers Across Three Quality Assessment Domains During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- A Multi-Centre Study:Saudi medical journal · 2026Article
- Quantitative Assessment of the Effects of Scatter Radiation on Image Quality During Extremity Radiography at a Leading Tertiary Hospital in Ghana: An Experimental Pilot Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Image quality in ultra-low-dose chest CT versus chest x-rays guiding paediatric cystic fibrosis care.European radiology · 2026Article
- Factors associated with junior doctor plain trauma X-ray interpretation accuracy and strategies for improvement: a scoping review.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Quality control system for patient positioning and filling in meta-information for chest X-ray examinations.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2025Article
- Enhancing patient safety through radiograph rejection analysis: Insights from a diagnostic imaging department audit.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Assessing chest radiographic quality and the influence of COVID-19 pathology: the Australian experience.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
- Image Repeat Analysis in Conventional Radiography in Mobile Clinics: A Retrospective Observational Study.Acta medica Philippina · 2025Article
- Generative AI in orthopedics: an explainable deep few-shot image augmentation pipeline for plain knee radiographs and Kellgren-Lawrence grading.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Multi-centre digital radiography reject analysis for different clinical room use types: The establishment of local reject reference levels for public hospital departments.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- Radiation dose reduction and image quality evaluation for lateral lumbar spine projection.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Medical imaging consultation practices and challenges at public hospitals in the Amhara regional state, Northwest Ethiopia: a descriptive phenomenological study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Understanding reasons for image rejection by radiologists and radiographers.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssessing the quality of diagnostic images is subjective and influenced by factors such education, skills, and experience of the assessor. This study aims to explore the radiographers' assessments of medical usefulness or rejection of X-ray images in specific cases.
resultsEighty-one radiographers from different countries responded to the questionnaire distributed online at the EFRS research HUB at ECR 2020 (a 15% response rate). Forty-two percent of the respondents practiced in the UK and Ireland. In addition to rejecting or keeping images in the presented 30 cases and giving a main reason for the images rejected, the participants explained their choice using comments, 1176 comments were obtained. Sixty percent of the comments were on kept images. The respondents kept on average 63% of the images. In the "Keep", "Could keep", and "Reject" categories on average 84%, 63% and 43% of images were kept respectively. The most common reasons given for rejecting an image were suboptimal positioning and centering. Potential diagnostic value and radiation protection were indicated as reasons to keep an image perceived as of low quality reported in n = 353 and n = 33 comments respectively.
conclusionsThere is an agreement internationally on what makes a good quality X-ray image. However, the opinion on medical usefulness of images of low or poor quality compared to image criteria varies. Diagnostic capability and radiation protection was the rationale used for keeping images not fulfilling image criteria. There seems to be a need for diagnostic quality to be included in image assessment in clinical practice.
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.