ArticleBMC medical education2025
Reflections on training and management of junior radiologists through analysis of correction rates in emergency radiology reports.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeNumerous studies have examined factors affecting junior radiologists' interpretation accuracy, mostly focusing on Western countries. This study investigates the accuracy of radiology reports during emergency shifts in a Chinese hospital, considering shift times, examination types, radiologist experience, and patient factors. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom January 2023 to March 2024, we randomly selected emergency shifts and analyzed radiology reports initially interpreted by junior radiologists and reviewed by senior radiologists. This study compared the corrected rates between day (8 AM to 3:59 PM) and night shifts (8 PM to 7:59 AM), as well as between the first and second halves of each shift. Additionally, we examined the relationships between examination type and quantity, radiologist experience, patient age, and correction rates.
resultsIn 19 day shifts and 18 night shifts, 14 junior radiologists initially interpreted 8,338 reports. The corrected rate for daytime emergency reports (25.09%) was higher than for nighttime reports (21.91%, p = 0.236). Corrected rate in the second half of shifts was lower than in the first half, regardless of day (28.89% vs. 22.15%, p < 0.001) or night (22.89% vs. 19.05%, p = 0.008). Radiologist experience is significantly associated with corrected rates (p < 0.001), with elderly patients (29.85%) showing a higher rate of corrections compared to children (22.03%) and middle-aged patients (18.85%, p < 0.001).
conclusionCorrection rates of radiology reports vary under different training, different working hours, and different working models. Customizing management practices and training programs based on research findings is essential to improve accuracy and develop specific guidelines.
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.