ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2022
Comparison between radiographers with sonography education working in remote Australia and radiologists' interpretation of ultrasound examinations.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 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
- A Blended Case-Based and Practical Training Framework for Graduate Ultrasound Education: A Perspective on Competency-Based Instruction.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of ultrasound screening in right upper quadrant pain: A comparative study in a basic emergency service.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Comparison between radiographers with sonography education working in remote Australia and radiologists' interpretation of ultrasound examinations.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRadiographers working in remote Far North Queensland (FNQ), Australia, need to possess unique skills sets in order to provide culturally safe practice to predominantly Indigenous communities. Due to the lack of onsite radiologists in FNQ, radiographers need to provide preliminary findings to referring practitioners including sonographic findings. The accuracy of such findings has not been evaluated to date. The objective of this study was to compare the level of agreement and recommendations for further investigations of FNQ radiographers to teleradiologists' reports. As radiographic findings are not recorded or stored as part of routine practice, only sonographic findings were included in the study.
methodsConsecutive de-identified ultrasound cases were extracted between January and March 2019 inclusively by an independent investigator. The researcher scored the ultrasound cases between 1 and 4 according to levels of agreement between sonographic findings and teleradiologists' reports, and recommendations between radiographers and teleradiologists were also compared using frequency analysis.
resultsFive-hundred and thirty-two ultrasound cases were included for this study. Of those, 517 (97.2%) were in complete agreement and 15 (2.8%) reported minor discrepancies. There were no moderate or major discrepancies suggesting an overall accuracy rate of 100% as the radiographer/sonographer findings were in close agreement with the teleradiologists' reports. There was complete agreement regarding further clinical recommendations in 453 (85%) cases. The discrepancy in the remaining 15% of cases did not lead to any adverse or changed patient management.
conclusionsThis study supports existing evidence about the accuracy and timely communication of sonographic findings to radiologists and other health care professionals, in keeping with the Medical Radiation Practice Board of Australia expectations. It is likely that radiographer comments on plain radiographic images are equally as reliable, but this remains to be explored.
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.