ArticleIndustrial health2024
Asian Intensive Reader of Pneumoconiosis program: examination for certification during 2008-2020.
Article in Industrial health, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence in quantitative chest imaging analysis for occupational lung disease: appraisal of its current status.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2026Review
- Health checkup initiatives for returning Indonesian migrant workers.Environmental and occupational health practice · 2026Article
- Computed tomography-based imaging biomarker identifies coal workers' pneumoconiosis.Frontiers in physiology · 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
16 authors at 10 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined physicians' participation and performance in the examinations administered by the Asian Intensive Reader of Pneumoconiosis (AIR Pneumo) program from 2008 to 2020 and compared radiograph readings of physicians who passed with those who failed the examinations. Demography of the participants, participation trends, pass/fail rates, and proficiency scores were summarized; differences in reading the radiographs for pneumoconiosis of physicians who passed the examinations and those who failed were evaluated. By December 2020, 555 physicians from 20 countries had taken certification examinations; the number of participants increased in recent years. Reported background specialty training and work experience varied widely. Passing rate and mean proficiency score for participants who passed were 83.4% and 77.6 ± 9.4 in certification, and 76.8% and 88.1 ± 4.5 in recertification examinations. Compared with physicians who passed the examinations, physicians who failed tended to classify test radiographs as positive for pneumoconiosis and read a higher profusion; they likely missed large opacities and pleural plaques and had a lower accuracy in recognizing the shape of small opacities. Findings suggest that physicians who failed the examination tend to over-diagnose radiographs as positive for pneumoconiosis with higher profusion and have difficulty in correctly identifying small opacity shape.
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.