Cargando…

Understanding reasons for image rejection by radiologists and radiographers

INTRODUCTION: A core element of a radiographer's role is the decision on whether a radiograph is sufficient for diagnosis, or a repeat examination is needed. Studies illustrate the disagreement on the diagnostic value of radiographs between radiographers and radiologists, which may influence re...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Decoster, Robin, Toomey, Rachel, Smits, Dirk, Haygood, Tamara Miner, Ryan, Marie‐Louise
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10258630/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36565472
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.641
_version_ 1785057508174331904
author Decoster, Robin
Toomey, Rachel
Smits, Dirk
Haygood, Tamara Miner
Ryan, Marie‐Louise
author_facet Decoster, Robin
Toomey, Rachel
Smits, Dirk
Haygood, Tamara Miner
Ryan, Marie‐Louise
author_sort Decoster, Robin
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: A core element of a radiographer's role is the decision on whether a radiograph is sufficient for diagnosis, or a repeat examination is needed. Studies illustrate the disagreement on the diagnostic value of radiographs between radiographers and radiologists, which may influence repeat examinations. This study investigates if parameters contributing to image quality are possible determinants to explain the difference between professions. METHODS: A total of 74 radiographers and radiologists from three different countries assessed three data sets (chest PA, hip HBL, c‐spine lateral), each containing 25 radiographs. All observers scored image quality in terms of anatomical visualisation, positioning, collimation, detector exposure and judged the diagnostic value using the ACR RadLex classification. All assessments were performed on a clinically relevant display. Visual grading characteristics were used to compare image quality evaluations between groups. RESULTS: Radiographers scored the visualisation of anatomical structures lower than radiologists though the difference was not statistically significant. A difference in classification using the RadLex categories – with radiographers rejecting more radiographs – was demonstrated. Only the subjective evaluation of the detector exposure correlated statistically with RadLex ratings. There was no difference between radiographers and radiologists when reviewing patient positioning and collimation. CONCLUSION: Radiographers and radiologists agree on the visualisation of anatomical structures, but radiographers are more critical towards the diagnostic value. Within the criteria studied, the evaluation of anatomical structures does not explain the difference. Radiographs have a higher change of being rejected if the observer (subjectively) assessed the detector exposure as inappropriate. This correlation is stronger for radiographers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10258630
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102586302023-06-13 Understanding reasons for image rejection by radiologists and radiographers Decoster, Robin Toomey, Rachel Smits, Dirk Haygood, Tamara Miner Ryan, Marie‐Louise J Med Radiat Sci Original Articles INTRODUCTION: A core element of a radiographer's role is the decision on whether a radiograph is sufficient for diagnosis, or a repeat examination is needed. Studies illustrate the disagreement on the diagnostic value of radiographs between radiographers and radiologists, which may influence repeat examinations. This study investigates if parameters contributing to image quality are possible determinants to explain the difference between professions. METHODS: A total of 74 radiographers and radiologists from three different countries assessed three data sets (chest PA, hip HBL, c‐spine lateral), each containing 25 radiographs. All observers scored image quality in terms of anatomical visualisation, positioning, collimation, detector exposure and judged the diagnostic value using the ACR RadLex classification. All assessments were performed on a clinically relevant display. Visual grading characteristics were used to compare image quality evaluations between groups. RESULTS: Radiographers scored the visualisation of anatomical structures lower than radiologists though the difference was not statistically significant. A difference in classification using the RadLex categories – with radiographers rejecting more radiographs – was demonstrated. Only the subjective evaluation of the detector exposure correlated statistically with RadLex ratings. There was no difference between radiographers and radiologists when reviewing patient positioning and collimation. CONCLUSION: Radiographers and radiologists agree on the visualisation of anatomical structures, but radiographers are more critical towards the diagnostic value. Within the criteria studied, the evaluation of anatomical structures does not explain the difference. Radiographs have a higher change of being rejected if the observer (subjectively) assessed the detector exposure as inappropriate. This correlation is stronger for radiographers. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-12-24 2023-06 /pmc/articles/PMC10258630/ /pubmed/36565472 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.641 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy and New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Decoster, Robin
Toomey, Rachel
Smits, Dirk
Haygood, Tamara Miner
Ryan, Marie‐Louise
Understanding reasons for image rejection by radiologists and radiographers
title Understanding reasons for image rejection by radiologists and radiographers
title_full Understanding reasons for image rejection by radiologists and radiographers
title_fullStr Understanding reasons for image rejection by radiologists and radiographers
title_full_unstemmed Understanding reasons for image rejection by radiologists and radiographers
title_short Understanding reasons for image rejection by radiologists and radiographers
title_sort understanding reasons for image rejection by radiologists and radiographers
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10258630/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36565472
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.641
work_keys_str_mv AT decosterrobin understandingreasonsforimagerejectionbyradiologistsandradiographers
AT toomeyrachel understandingreasonsforimagerejectionbyradiologistsandradiographers
AT smitsdirk understandingreasonsforimagerejectionbyradiologistsandradiographers
AT haygoodtamaraminer understandingreasonsforimagerejectionbyradiologistsandradiographers
AT ryanmarielouise understandingreasonsforimagerejectionbyradiologistsandradiographers