Accuracy of radiographers' reports in the interpretation of radiographic examinations of the skeletal system: a review of 6796 cases

Piper, K.; Paterson, A.; Godfrey, Ray

doi:10.1016/j.radi.2004.05.004

Cited by 53 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…16 All responses which indicated definitely normal were regarded as normal and scored TN or FP accordingly. All other responses were regarded as abnormal and scored as TP or FN.…”

Section: Marking Criteria For the Osementioning

confidence: 99%

CT head reporting by radiographers: Results of an accredited postgraduate programme

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: A preliminary small scale study to assess the diagnostic performance of a limited group of reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists in clinical practice undertaking computer tomography (CT) head interpretation.Method: A multiple reader multiple case (MRMC) alternative free response receiver operating characteristic (AFROC) methodology was applied for this study. Utilising an image bank of 30 CT head examinations, with a 1:1 ratio of normal to abnormal cases. A reference standard was established by double reporting the original reports using two additional independent consultant radiologists with arbitration of discordance by the researcher. Twelve observers from six southern National Health Service (NHS) trusts were invited to participate. The results were compared for accuracy, agreement, sensitivity, specificity. Data analysis used AFROC and area under the curve (AUC) with standard error against the ground truth. Results:The reporting radiographers results demonstrated a mean sensitivity rate of 88.7% (95% CI 82.3 to 95.1%), specificity 95.6% (96% CI 90.1 to 100%) and accuracy of 92.2% (95% CI 89.3 to 95%).The consultant radiologists mean sensitivity rate was 83.35% (95% CI 80 to 86.7%), specificity 90% (95% CI 86.7 to 93.3%) and accuracy of 86.65% (95% CI 83.3 to 90%). Observer performance between the two groups was compared with AFROC, AUC, and standard error analysis (p=0.94, SE 0.202). Conclusion:The findings of this research indicate that within a limited study, a small group of reporting radiographers demonstrated high levels of diagnostic accuracy in the interpretation of CT head examinations that was equivalent to a small selection of consultant radiologists. *Abstract Highlights We assessed reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists in a clinical setting. This was a small scale retrospective multi-reader multi-case multi-site study. AFROC used lesion-based decisions rather than case-based decisions. Within a limited study the observer performance was high in CT head interpretation. Parallels were drawn with published results from other CT head interpretation studies.

show abstract

“…16 All responses which indicated definitely normal were regarded as normal and scored TN or FP accordingly. All other responses were regarded as abnormal and scored as TP or FN.…”

Section: Marking Criteria For the Osementioning

confidence: 99%

CT head reporting by radiographers: Results of an accredited postgraduate programme

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7,9,[11][12][13][14][15] The majority of studies addressing clinical reporting by trained radiographers have focused on diagnostic accuracy. Excellent sensitivity and specificity has been reported for radiographer reporting of skeletal radiographs, 7,11,12 chest radiographs (CXR), 14,16 magnetic resonance imaging of the knee and lumbar spine, 13,17 and screening mammography. 15 Limited evidence exists on the cost effectiveness of radiographer reporting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding the role of radiographers in reporting suspected lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision tree model

Bajre¹,

Pennington

Woznitza

et al. 2017

Radiography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please cite this publication as follows:Bajre, M., Pennington, M., Woznitza, N., Beardmore, C., Radhakrishnan, M., Harris, R. and Mccrone, P. (2017) Expanding the role of radiographers in reporting suspected lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision tree model. Radiography, 23 (4 IntroductionTo assess whether an enhanced role for radiographers in reporting lung cancer chest radiographs is cost-effective. MethodsCosts and outcomes of chest radiograph reporting by reporting radiographer or by a radiologist were compared using a decision tree model. The model followed patients from an initial chest radiographs for suspected lung cancer to the provision of cancer care in positive cases. Sensitivity and specificity of reporting for radiographers and radiologists were derived from a recent trial. Treatment costs and quality adjusted life expectancy were estimated over five years for those diagnosed. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to test the robustness of inference to parameter uncertainty. ResultsFor 1,000 simulated patients, radiographer reporting decreased detection costs by £8,500 and detected 10.3 more cases at initial presentation. After including treatment costs and outcomes, radiographer reporting remained cheaper than radiologist reporting and resulted in 1.4 additional QALYs per 1,000 screened patients. Probabilistic analysis indicated a 98% likelihood that radiographer reporting is cheaper and more effective than radiologist reporting after inclusion of treatment costs and outcomes. ConclusionRadiographer reporting is a cost-effective alternative to radiologist reporting in lung cancer diagnosis. Further work is needed to support the adoption of radiographer's reporting pathway in diagnosis of lung cancer suspected patients.Word count -2483

show abstract

“…[4][5][6] The number of radiographer reporting roles in the UK have continued to increase, responding to the increased demand for imaging services, shortage of radiologists, expansion of cancer services and cost pressures. 6 Concerns from radiologists regarding the quality of radiographer reporting of skeletal examinations were largely dispelled several years ago [7][8][9] and joint guidance by the Royal College of Radiologists and the Society and College of Radiographers (SCoR) 10 has acknowledged the importance of reporting radiographers within the wider team to ensure imaging departments deliver a safe and effective patient-centred service.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiographer reporting in the UK: is the current scope of practice limiting plain-film reporting capacity?

Milner¹,

Culpan²,

Snaith³

2016

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To update knowledge on individual radiographer contribution to plain-film reporting workloads; to assess whether there is scope to further increase radiographer reporting capacity within this area. Methods: Reporting radiographers were invited to complete an online survey. Invitations were posted to every acute National Health Service trust in the UK whilst snowball sampling was employed via a network of colleagues, ex-colleagues and acquaintances. Information was sought regarding the demographics, geographical location and anatomical and referral scope of practice. Results: A total of 259 responses were received. 15.1% and 7.7% of respondents are qualified to report chest and abdomen radiographs, respectively. The mean time spent reporting per week is 14.5 h (range 1-37.5). 23.6% of radiographers report only referrals from emergency departments whilst 50.6% of radiographers have limitations on their practice. Conclusion: The scope of practice of reporting radiographers has increased since previous studies; however, radiographer reporting of chest and abdomen radiographs has failed to progress in line with demand. There remain opportunities to increase radiographer capacity to assist the management of reporting backlogs. Advances in knowledge: This study is the first to examine demographic factors of reporting radiographers across the UK and is one of the largest in-depth studies of UK reporting radiographers, at individual level, to date.

show abstract

Accuracy of radiographers' reports in the interpretation of radiographic examinations of the skeletal system: a review of 6796 cases

Cited by 53 publications

References 6 publications

CT head reporting by radiographers: Results of an accredited postgraduate programme

CT head reporting by radiographers: Results of an accredited postgraduate programme

Expanding the role of radiographers in reporting suspected lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision tree model

Radiographer reporting in the UK: is the current scope of practice limiting plain-film reporting capacity?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About