ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2023
Understanding reasons for image rejection by radiologists and radiographers.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Navigating Acceptability: A Think-Aloud Study of Subjective and Contextual Factors in Radiographic Image Rejection.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- The cost of perfection: An investigation into the unnecessary rejection of clinically acceptable lateral wrist imaging.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2023Review
- Making the most of X-ray reject analysis in the digital age.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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA core element of a radiographer's role is the decision on whether a radiograph is sufficient for diagnosis, or a repeat examination is needed. Studies illustrate the disagreement on the diagnostic value of radiographs between radiographers and radiologists, which may influence repeat examinations. This study investigates if parameters contributing to image quality are possible determinants to explain the difference between professions.
methodsA total of 74 radiographers and radiologists from three different countries assessed three data sets (chest PA, hip HBL, c-spine lateral), each containing 25 radiographs. All observers scored image quality in terms of anatomical visualisation, positioning, collimation, detector exposure and judged the diagnostic value using the ACR RadLex classification. All assessments were performed on a clinically relevant display. Visual grading characteristics were used to compare image quality evaluations between groups.
resultsRadiographers scored the visualisation of anatomical structures lower than radiologists though the difference was not statistically significant. A difference in classification using the RadLex categories - with radiographers rejecting more radiographs - was demonstrated. Only the subjective evaluation of the detector exposure correlated statistically with RadLex ratings. There was no difference between radiographers and radiologists when reviewing patient positioning and collimation.
conclusionRadiographers and radiologists agree on the visualisation of anatomical structures, but radiographers are more critical towards the diagnostic value. Within the criteria studied, the evaluation of anatomical structures does not explain the difference. Radiographs have a higher change of being rejected if the observer (subjectively) assessed the detector exposure as inappropriate. This correlation is stronger for radiographers.
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.