ArticleEmergency medicine Australasia : EMA2025
Risk-benefit analysis of a multi-site radiographer comment model for emergency departments.
Article in Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA, 2025. 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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCritical/urgent X-ray findings are not always communicated in an appropriate time frame to ED physicians. The practice of radiographers alerting referrers to clinically significant image findings (verbally, via image flags or written comment) is noted internationally but risk assessment data is unavailable in the literature. A hybrid radiographer comment and alert model was piloted in New South Wales and a risk-benefit assessment conducted for timely and safe communication of abnormal X-ray appearances to ED physicians.
methodsRadiographer comments (n = 1102) were provided to five New South Wales EDs by 69 radiographers for a period of 3-12 months. Site auditors classified comments as true positive (TP), false positive (FP) or indeterminate (ID) with respect to the radiology report. FP comments were investigated with ED referrers and a low-medium-high-risk assessment was provided by two independent reviewers.
resultsA total of 42 FP (3.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.9-5.3) comments were analysed for any adverse outcomes. Risk assessments demonstrated 37 low, 5 low-moderate and no high-risk cases. A total of 282 direct or potential patient benefits were identified (26.4%; 95% CI 23.8-29.1). A total of 42 radiology report discrepancies were incidentally found: (3.9%; 95% CI 2.9-5.3). Audit results demonstrated areas where the radiographer comment could mitigate risk.
conclusionThe provision of radiographer alerts with a written comment for ED was found to be low risk to patients in the pilot study. Radiographers communicating directly with the emergency team when abnormal image appearances are detected can reduce diagnostic error and improve patient safety and health 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.