ReviewJournal of medical radiation sciences2024
Formalising written preliminary image evaluation by Australian radiographers: a review of practice value.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary Clinical Evaluation in Cross-Sectional Imaging: A Qualitative Inquiry Into the Ethical Considerations in the Era of Artificial Intelligence.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- An Analysis of Radiographers' False Preliminary Image Evaluation Comments in One New Zealand District.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Radiographer Preliminary Image Evaluation Accuracy in Interpreting Paediatric Trauma Radiographs.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Operational challenges and collaborative solutions in radiology image interpretation: perspectives from imaging departments in a low-resource setting.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- Preliminary image evaluation performance of radiographers in one New Zealand District: a 6-month prospective study.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- Continuing Professional Development - Medical Imaging.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.