ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2026
An Analysis of Radiographers' False Preliminary Image Evaluation Comments in One New Zealand District.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPreliminary image evaluation (PIE) is an abnormality detection system that enables radiographers to assist emergency department (ED) clinicians in their treatment decisions by minimising radiographic interpretation errors. For a PIE to be successful, radiographers need to provide accurate comments on images. Given the limited number of studies that evaluate radiographers' false PIE comments, the aim of this study was to determine common false negative (FN) and false positive (FP) comments in one district in New Zealand (NZ).
methodsSix months of PIE comments performed in the Taranaki district in NZ were collected and scored into four categories: true positive, true negative, FP or FN. The FN and FP comments were then evaluated to determine common errors and compared with international research.
resultsA total of 844 PIE comments were collected, with 21 (2.5%) scored as FN, and 27 (3.2%) scored as FP. The common FN themes included subtle or avulsion fractures, predominantly in fingers, hands, and wrists. The common FP themes were normal variants in the foot and ankle that were mistaken for fractures.
conclusionSeveral recommendations are made from this study to help improve radiographer PIE accuracy. These include the addition of an unsure or equivocal category when scoring PIE comments to account for PIE comments with ambiguous language. Other recommendations include ongoing targeted training of common errors and a higher resolution monitor (generally used for image reporting by radiologists) for radiographers when performing PIE.
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.