ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2025
Assessing chest radiographic quality and the influence of COVID-19 pathology: the Australian experience.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionQuality assurance (QA) in medical imaging ensures consistently high-quality images at acceptable radiation doses. However, the applicability of the chest X-ray (CXR) QA tool in images with pathology, particularly infectious diseases like COVID-19, has not been explored. This study examines the utility of the European Guidelines for image quality in QA of CXRs with varying severity and types of infectious disease.
methodsA convenient sampling methodology was employed to recruit 25 participants (qualified radiographers: n = 13 and 4th-year undergraduate radiography students: n = 12) to evaluate 70 CXR images using the European Guidelines for image quality in CXRs. The image dataset comprised of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cases, which were randomly selected to reflect routine clinical practice variability. Participants independently rated image quality based on 10 criteria in the European guidelines on quality criteria for CXRs using a six-point Likert scale. Image quality ratings of normal and pathological CXR images were compared using a Kruskal-Wallis test. Spearman's ranked order correlation was used to assess the association between quality criteria ratings.
resultsCXRs with no pathology or non-COVID pathologies exhibited statistically higher total QA scores compared to CXRs with COVID-19 and indeterminate COVID-19 (P < 0.001). This trend was evident across various QA factors, especially those associated with patient inspiration. Higher levels of infection corresponded to lower QA ratings. No differences were found between different pathologies regarding the medial border of the scapulae being outside the lung fields.
conclusionsSevere pathology negatively impacts the technical quality of CXRs with COVID-19 features without necessarily affecting their diagnostic value. The findings emphasise the need to prioritise diagnostic ability over technical quality when evaluating CXRs exhibiting diffuse signs of pathology.
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.