This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Brealey, S Articles by Thomas, N B Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Brealey, S Articles by Thomas, N B

Methodological standards in radiographer plain film reading performance studies

¹Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York YO1 5DD, ²Division of Radiography, University of Bradford, Bradford BD5 0BB and ³X-ray Department A, North Manchester General Hospital, Manchester M8 5RB, UK

The objectives of this paper are to raise awareness of the methodological standards that can affect the quality of radiographer plain-film reading performance studies and to determine the frequency with which these standards are fulfilled. Multiple search methods identified 30 such studies from between 1971 and the end of June 1999. The percentage of studies that fulfilled criteria for the 10 methodological standards were as follows. (1) Performance of a sample size calculation, 3%; (2) definition of a normal and abnormal report, 97%; (3) description of the sequence of events through which films passed before reporting, 94%; (4) analysis of individual groups of observers within a combination of groups, 50% (5) appropriate choice of reference standard, 80%; (6) appropriate choice of arbiter, 57%; (7) appropriate use of a control, 22%; (8) analysis of pertinent clinical subgroups, e.g. body areas, patient type, 44%; (9) availability of data for re-calculation, 59%; and (10) presentation of indeterminate results, 69%. These findings indicate variation in the application of the methodological standards to studies of radiographer's film reading performance. Careful consideration of these standards is an essential component of study quality and hence the validity of the evidence base used to underpin radiographic reporting policy.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S BREALEY, C HEWITT, A SCALLY, S HAHN, C GODFREY, and N THOMAS Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity of radiographers' plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice Br. J. Radiol., July 1, 2009; 82(979): 600 - 604. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S D Brealey, A J Scally, S Hahn, and C Godfrey Evidence of reference standard related bias in studies of plain radiograph reading performance: a meta-regression Br. J. Radiol., June 1, 2007; 80(954): 406 - 413. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S Brealey, D G King, S Hahn, C Godfrey, M T I Crowe, K Bloor, S Crane, and D Longsworth The costs and effects of introducing selectively trained radiographers to an A&E reporting service: a retrospective controlled before and after study Br. J. Radiol., June 1, 2005; 78(930): 499 - 505. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. M. Bossuyt, J. B. Reitsma, D. E. Bruns, C. A. Gatsonis, P. P. Glasziou, L. M. Irwig, D. Moher, D. Rennie, H. C.W. de Vet, and J. G. Lijmer The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration Ann Intern Med, January 7, 2003; 138(1): W1 - W12. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. M. Bossuyt, J. B. Reitsma, D. E. Bruns, C. A. Gatsonis, P. P. Glasziou, L. M. Irwig, D. Moher, D. Rennie, H. C.W. de Vet, and J. G. Lijmer The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration Clin. Chem., January 1, 2003; 49(1): 7 - 18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S Brealey, D G King, M T I Crowe, I Crawshaw, L Ford, N G Warnock, R A J Mannion, and S Ethell Accident and Emergency and General Practitioner plain radiograph reporting by radiographers and radiologists: a quasi-randomized controlled trial Br. J. Radiol., January 1, 2003; 76(901): 57 - 61. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]