ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Factors associated with junior doctor plain trauma X-ray interpretation accuracy and strategies for improvement: a scoping review.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlain radiography is a key diagnostic tool for trauma patients in emergency departments, often requiring immediate interpretation so that urgent care is not delayed. Due to difficulty in accessing timely radiologist reports and the demand for rapid decision-making, emergency department doctors, including junior doctors, have, over the years, been involved in the initial interpretation of plain trauma X-rays. However, concerns remain about the accuracy of these junior doctors, which may impact patient safety. Despite its significance, there's a notable gap in knowledge on the factors that influence their accuracy and strategies to improve their accuracy. This review explored these specific factors and strategies.
methodA scoping review was conducted following the framework by Arksey and O'Malley as updated by Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien. Searches were performed in PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and through reference list search of eligible studies from a timeframe of 1985 to August 2025. A narrative approach was employed to describe findings after content analysis of eligible studies.
resultsNine articles were ultimately included. The factors identified were emergency department clinical experience, anatomical site-specific interpretation, radiographic image-related factors, time and mechanism of traumatic injury. Further, plain trauma X-ray interpretation training, emergency department clinical experience with a teaching programme and collaboration with radiographers were identified as potential accuracy improvement strategies.
conclusionJunior doctors' plain trauma X-ray interpretation accuracy was influenced by several factors. Strategies like training, increased exposure to trauma X-rays in the emergency department with structured teaching programmes, and enhanced collaboration with radiographers can help mitigate the risk of misinterpretations among junior doctors. Future studies should not only validate these findings and investigate additional influencing factors and strategies, but also examine potential barriers to implementing such strategies. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.