ArticleEmergency radiology2024
X-ray interpretation in emergency department in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Do we need the radiologist?
Article in Emergency radiology, 2024. 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, 0 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
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChest x-rays are widely used for diagnosing chest pathology worldwide. Pediatricians frequently interpret chest radiographs in the emergency department, guiding patient management. This study aims to assess the competency of non-radiologists in interpreting emergency chest x-rays and compare it with trainees of different levels to determine the necessity of radiologist input. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted in Saudi Arabia from September to October 2023, involving 385 participants, including pediatricians and medical interns from various regions. Carefully selected questions addressed a range of x-ray abnormalities in pediatric emergencies, assessing fundamental understanding of x-ray interpretation, such as inspiratory vs. expiratory and AP or PA films.
resultsThe study included 385 participants, primarily Saudi nationals in the eastern region, with an equal gender distribution and ages ranging from 20 to 29 years. Approximately 29.09% demonstrated fair knowledge, with 28% being Junior Pediatrics Residents, 18% Pediatric Consultants, and 15% Senior Pediatrics Residents. Fair knowledge was significantly associated with individuals aged 20-29 years, residents of the western region, and Junior Pediatrics Residents. Clinical knowledge varied among different groups, with 59% correctly identifying atypical pneumonia and 65% recognizing asymmetrical hyperinflation. However, rates for other conditions differed, with low identification of potential foreign body aspiration and film type. Accuracy in identifying tension pneumothorax and hyperlucency varied among clinicians. Pleural effusion films had a 65% identification rate for the diagnosis, but only 28% accurately described the X-ray and selected the correct answer for lung opacity.
conclusionThe study concluded that 29.9% of the participating physicians exhibited fair knowledge of common pediatric emergency radiological films. Junior pediatric residents showed the best knowledge, and Tetralogy of Fallot, asymmetrical hyperinflation, and pleural effusion had the highest recognition rates. In conclusion, there is still a need for radiologists in the pediatric emergency department to ensure optimal functioning.
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.