ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2024
Analysing false-positive errors when Australian radiographers use preliminary image evaluation.
Article 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Building Research Capacity in Medical Radiation Sciences Through University-Clinical Partnerships: A Commentary on Working Smarter, Not Harder.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
- Assessing Fracture Detection: A Comparison of Minimal-Resource and Standard-Resource Plain Radiographic Interpretations.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence and radiographer preliminary image evaluation: What might the future hold for radiographers providing x-ray interpretation in the acute setting?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
introductionDiagnostic errors in the emergency departments can have major implications on patient outcomes. Preliminary Image Evaluation (PIE) is a brief comment written by a radiographer describing an acute or traumatic pathology on a radiograph and can be used to complement referrer's image interpretation in the absence of the radiologist report. Currently, no studies exist that focus their analysis on false-positive (FP) errors in PIE. The purpose of this study was to investigate the regions of the body that cause the most FP errors and recognise other areas in image interpretation that may need additional attention.
methodsA longitudinal retrospective clinical audit was conducted to determine the accuracy of radiographer PIE's over 5 years from January 2016 to December 2020. PIE's were compared to the radiologist report to assess for diagnostic accuracy. FP and unsure errors were further categorised by anatomical region and age.
resultsOver this period, a sample size of 11,090 PIE audits were included in the study demonstrating an overall PIE accuracy of 87.7%. Foot, ankle and chest regions caused the most FP errors, while ankle, shoulder and elbow caused the most unsure cases. 76% of the unsure cases were negative for any pathology when compared to the radiologist report. The paediatric population accounted for 21.3% of FP cases and 33.6% of unsure cases.
conclusionFindings in this study should be used to tailor education specific to radiographer image interpretation. Improving radiography image interpretation skills can assist in improving referrer diagnostic accuracy, thus improving patient outcomes.
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.