Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37635350›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical radiation sciences2024

Formalising written preliminary image evaluation by Australian radiographers: a review of practice value.

Allie Tonks, Justin Varcoe, Siena Maurici

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Continuing Professional Development - Medical Imaging.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Allie TonksRadiology Department, Sydney Adventist Hospital, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4851-6108
Justin VarcoeRadiology Department, Blue Mountains Hospital, Blue Mountains, Australia.
Siena MauriciRadiology Department, Macquarie University Hospital, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Medical Radiation Practice Board of Australia (MRPBA) minimum competency framework requires all Australian radiographers to identify significant pathology in radiological images and take appropriate action to alert these urgent findings and ensure patient safety. Despite professional bodies endorsing the provision of preliminary image evaluations (PIE) in written format, radiographer image interpretation often remains inconsistent, informal, or undocumented. The purpose of this narrative review was to assess the literature to determine if PIE in the form of written radiographer comments is of value to the Australian healthcare system. A structured search was completed using four health research databases: CINAHL, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science. Studies have suggested that there is a contextual need for commenting due to increased imaging service pressures, radiologist shortages and subsequent reporting delays. Radiographers appear well placed and willing to provide accurate initial input with evidence that this would be valued and appreciated within the multidisciplinary team. Radiographer commenting has also been shown to reduce diagnostic and communicative errors with the potential to improve patient management. Finally, it was shown that participation in image interpretation practices can enhance recruitment, retention and job satisfaction among radiographers. Therefore, the current literature supports implementation of radiographer commenting within the Australian healthcare system.

Indexed as

RadiologyAustraliaHumansRadiographyRadiologistsDiagnostic imagingradiographic image interpretationradiographyradiology departmentX-rays

Identifiers

PMID37635350
PMCPMC10920952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.