ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2024
Preliminary image evaluation performance of radiographers in one New Zealand District: a 6-month prospective study.
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.
- An Analysis of Radiographers' False Preliminary Image Evaluation Comments in One New Zealand District.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- The evolution of radiographers interpreting radiographs in Australia and New Zealand: Nomenclature matters.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- What place for radiographers? The appropriateness of preliminary image evaluation in New Zealand emergency departments.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- Continuing Professional Development - Medical Imaging.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPreliminary image evaluation (PIE) is a system where radiographers alert emergency department referrers to the presence or absence of abnormalities on acute extremity X-ray examinations. PIE and similar systems have been utilised in the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia due to a shortage of radiologists to provide a timely report. As New Zealand (NZ) faces a similar shortage, PIE should be considered to address the negative impact this has on patients. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of regular feedback and education on radiographers' performance when detecting and describing acute abnormalities on extremity X-ray examinations in ED.
methodsA prospective longitudinal study design was utilised for this study. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and accuracy of PIEs performed by seven radiographers at a public provincial district in NZ were assessed over a 6-month period, with the participants provided monthly results along with regular e-mailed feedback on common errors.
resultsThe mean for sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy calculated with a 95% confidence interval over the 6-month period were 92.8% (89.9, 95.8), 94.9 (93.1, 96.8), and 94.2 (91.9, 96.5), respectively. When the month-to-month results were analysed, the results demonstrated an improvement in participants' sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy over the 6-month period.
conclusionThe results of this study demonstrated that radiographers who participated in the study can perform PIE to a high standard that is comparable with the findings from international studies and demonstrated an improvement over 6 months. Therefore, PIE may be useful in NZ to aid ED clinicians in their clinical decisions when a radiology report is unavailable.
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.