ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2024
Workload as a predictor of radiographer preliminary image evaluation accuracy.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
introductionDespite a demonstrated high accuracy and reported successful implementations, radiographer preliminary image evaluation (PIE) has been slow and infrequent in its rollout across Australia. A key barrier reported to hamper radiographer PIE service implementation is lack of adequate time to review radiographs and provide an accurate interpretation. This study sought to conduct a correlational analysis between radiographer imaging workload and PIE service accuracy.
methodsA total of 45,373 exams and 1152 PIE comments evenly distributed each month from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022, were reviewed. PIE comments were assessed for consistency with the radiologist's report. The imaging workload (average exams completed per hour) was separated into three, eight-hour 'shifts' based on time of imaging. Correlational analysis was performed using linear regression models and assessed for normality using the Shapiro-Wilks test.
resultsThe study reported no significant linear association between increasing average workload and reduced service accuracy (P = 0.136). It was however noted that when the average workload increased beyond 7 exams/hour, average service accuracy for PIE was always below 85%.
conclusionThis study has demonstrated that, although perceived, there is no statistically significant correlation between x-ray imaging workload and radiographer PIE service accuracy. Consideration of this correlation to be a significant barrier to participation in such a service was not reported at this site.
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.