ArticleBJR open2026
Are radiology residents safe to report feeding nasogastric (NG) tubes on chest X-rays?
Article in BJR open, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The task of issuing reports on whether nasogastric (NG) tubes are safe for enteral nutrition on chest X-ray (CXR) often falls to radiology residents. The aims of this study are to evaluate whether radiology residents are formally trained and their performance in interpreting NG tube position on CXR. Methods: Radiology residents were invited to participate in an online study evaluating NG tube position on CXR. The CXR images comprised 20 NG tubes, 14 of which were correctly sited, while 4 were in the distal oesophagus and 2 in the lung. Results: Twenty-eight (of 185, 15%) radiology residents responded-despite incentives to participate and directed by Training Program Directors/Heads of School. Of those, only 10 (35.7%) correctly identified all NG tube positions on CXR. The most common error was reporting a Conclusions: This study suggests that radiology residents may not be adequately trained to interpret the position of NG tubes on CXRs. Early and compulsory training in this important skill should be instituted urgently. Advances in knowledge: There is a critical gap in radiology training. Radiology residents may not be adequately prepared to safely interpret NG tube position on chest X-rays. New DHSC memorandum of understanding mandates competency-based education across all training 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.