ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2025
Quality Assessment of Plain Chest X-Rays of the Expatriates in Jordan: Multi-Centres Study.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2025. 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.
- Radiological Findings of Chest X-Rays During the Hajj Seasons 1444-1445 H/2023-2024 G: Diagnostic Quality and Gender Differences in Interpretation Concordance.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
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
Background: High-quality diagnostic imaging is critical to patient safety and effective healthcare. This study assesses the quality of plain chest X-rays (CXR) for expatriates in Jordan, with a focus on complying to American College of Radiology (ACR) and European Commission (EC) criteria at 12 healthcare facilities. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional evaluation of 1020 CXR radiographs from 2023 was performed. A quantitative classification approach was used to assess CXR for ACR and EC compliance, which included exposure, anatomical visibility, organ superimposition, and image annotation. Results: Only 15% of CXRs passed all of the quality standards. While exposure and anatomical visualization demonstrated adequate compliance, organ superimposition and image annotation were much lower, at 23% and 29%, respectively, revealing gaps that may impact diagnostic accuracy and patient safety. Conclusion: Significant discrepancies in CXR quality highlight the need for enhanced training, rigorous adherence to imaging protocols, and robust quality control to improve diagnosis accuracy and patient outcomes, especially in expatriate screening programs.
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.