ArticleCureus2023
Clinicians' Interpretation of Unreported Chest Radiographs in Biologic Prescription Workup Service: A Comprehensive Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinicians without a radiology specialization face difficulties when they attempt to interpret chest X-rays (CXRs), a crucial and extensively utilized diagnostic tool that plays a fundamental role in the detection of pulmonary and cardiovascular disorders. This cross-sectional study assessed the confidence and competence of clinicians, including junior specialty trainees, higher specialty trainees, and specialist nurses, in interpreting CXRs before starting biological treatment. An online survey was used to collect data from clinicians in various healthcare settings, focusing on their experience, training, confidence levels, and CXR interpretation proficiency. The survey uncovered clinicians' insufficient confidence in interpreting the pre-biological screening CXRs despite their clinical expertise. This uncertainty raises concerns about potential misinterpretations, affecting timely treatment decisions. A Kruskal-Wallis test indicated a significant difference between training levels required with a p-value of 0.001, rejecting the null hypothesis. Subsequently, a Dunn-Bonferroni test revealed that the higher specialty trainee-specialist nurse pair differed significantly, with the specialist nurse group requiring more training. This study highlighted the need for enhanced radiology education for clinicians involved in chest radiograph interpretation for pre-biological screening. Implementing a structured training program is essential to improve skills and ensure accurate interpretation of non-formally reported chest radiographs, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes and healthcare practices.
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.