ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2025
Enhancing patient safety through radiograph rejection analysis: Insights from a diagnostic imaging department audit.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 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.
- Preparing safe doctors through innovative methodologies: Importance and cost effectiveness of emphatic patient safety teaching to undergraduates.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
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
Objective: Assessment of actual radiograph rejection was the primary goal of this investigation in the imaging facility of a public sector hospital, which was noticeably high during the pandemic as staff members were afraid of infection. Methods: This retrospective study was carried out in the department of Radiology, LRH from July 2023 to March 2024 during which a total of 47,300 radiographic examinations were conducted. Analysis was performed for the rejected radiographs and their causes respectively. Results: Our rate of 11% is comparable to the global range of 3.4-14.1 % respectively. Of the total rejection, 46.1% rejection was observed in males and 53.9% in females while 69.5 % & 30.5 % rejection was noticed in adults and pediatric age group respectively. Artifacts (26.2%) was the prime cause of rejection followed by motion (18.8%), positioning (14%), improper collimation (11.7%), exposure errors (8.4 %), wrong labeling (6.6%), machine faults (5.7 %), detector errors (4.5%), PACS issues (2.5 %) and re-requests from referring physician (1.6%). The highest rejection with respect to anatomical body parts was observed in chest radiography (29.9%), followed by extremities (28.8%), spine (11.4%), KUB (9.9%), skull (8.4%), abdomen (5.5%), pelvis (4.4%), and neck (1.7%) respectively. Conclusion: Radiograph rejection has reduced considerably but still is a common problem within the facility due to many contributing factors. Implementation of rejection analysis as an integral part of the quality assurance program as well as focusing on staff-centered skill and knowledge upliftment training programs can result in a significant reduction enhancing patient safety.
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.