ArticleUltrasound (Leeds, England)2026
Scanning the evidence: A pilot study evaluating the accuracy of sonographer reporting in the Republic of Ireland.
Article in Ultrasound (Leeds, England), 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
Introduction: In the Republic of Ireland (ROI), sonographers undertake ultrasound examinations but are limited to providing provisional reports requiring radiologist verification, except in obstetrics. ROI sonographers are educated to the same postgraduate standard as their independently reporting UK counterparts. This study investigates the comparability of sonographer and radiologist reporting throughout ROI. Methods: This clinical audit included sonographers from six ROI hospital groups. Each submitted 400 randomly selected non-obstetric examinations over 6 months. Provisional sonographer reports were reviewed by supporting radiologists and allocated agreement scores based on the Riley 2010 grading system. Results: In total, 6037 examinations were audited of which 99.6% achieved acceptable grades (Grades 1 and 2), 0.35% (21) were Grade 3, and only two requiring upgraded pathology classification. No reports were Grade 4 (unacceptable). Conclusion: This large, multicentre audit demonstrates the accuracy of sonographer reporting in the ROI with an agreement score of over 99%. Given this evidence and the substantial international literature demonstrating that sonographer reporting is both safe and effective, health authorities, regulatory agencies and imaging departments should consider developing systems to allow sonographers to report independently without routine radiologist oversight. This could release radiologists to undertake other duties, reducing waiting lists in both ultrasound and broader radiology.
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.