Radiography
Volume 14 , Pages e46-e54 , December 2008

Methodological approaches to evaluating the practice of radiographers’ interpretation of images: A review

  • S. Brealey

      Affiliations

    • Department of Health Sciences, University of York, 2nd Floor, Area 4 Seebohm Rowntree Building, York YO1 5DD, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0) 1904 321 357; fax: +44 (0) 1904 321 388.
    • ,
  • A.J. Scally

      Affiliations

    • Division of Radiography, University of Bradford, Bradford BD5 0BB, UK

Received 29 November 2007 ,Revised 14 January 2008 ,Accepted 15 January 2008.

References 

  1. Department of Health . National Health Service and Community Care Act. London: Stationary Office; 1990;
  2. Secretaries of State for Health, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland . Working for patients. London: Stationary Office; 1989;
  3. Department of Health . The NHS Plan: a plan for investment. A plan for reform. London: Stationary Office; 1998;
  4. Department of Health . Meeting the challenge. A strategy for the allied health professions. London: Stationary Office; 2000;
  5. The College of Radiographers . Role development in radiography. London: College of Radiographers; 1996;
  6. Paterson AM, Price R. Current topics in radiography number 2. London: W.B. Saunders Company Ltd; 1996;
  7. Prime NJ, Paterson AM, Henderson PI. The development of a curriculum – a case study of six courses providing courses in radiographic reporting. Radiography. 1999;5:63–70
  8. Paterson AM. Role development – towards 2000: a survey of role developments in radiography. London: College of Radiographers; 1995;
  9. Price RC, Le Masurier SB, High L, Miller LR. Changing times: a national survey of extended roles in diagnostic radiography. British Journal of Radiology. 1999;72:7
  10. The College of Radiographers . Reporting by radiographers: a vision paper. London: College of Radiographers; 1997;
  11. Paterson AM, Price RC, Thomas A, Nuttall L. Reporting by radiographers: a policy and practice guide. Radiography. 2004;10:205–212
  12. Sackett DL, Rosenburg WMC, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal. 1996;312:71–72
  13. Russell IT. The evaluation of computerised tomography: a review of research methods. In:  Culyer AJ,  Horisberger B editor. Economic and medical evaluation of health care technologies. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1983;p. 298–316
  14. Mackenzie R, Dixon AK. Measuring the effects of imaging: an evaluative framework. Clinical Radiology. 1995;50:513–518
  15. Pocock SJ. The justification for randomised controlled trials. In: Clinical trials – a practical approach. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1983;p. 50–65
  16. Brealey S. Measuring the effects of image interpretation: an evaluative framework. Clinical Radiology. 2001;56:341–347
  17. Fineberg HV, Bauman R, Sosman M. Computerized cranial tomography: effect on diagnostic and therapeutic plans. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1977;238:224–227
  18. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 1994;309:597–599
  19. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination . Planning the review. In: Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD Report 4. 2nd ed.. York: The University of York; 2001;p. 4
  20. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1992;268:240–248
  21. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. The science of reviewing research. Annals of the New York Academy of Science. 1993;703:125–336
  22. Brealey S, Glenny AM. A framework for radiographers planning to undertake a systematic review. Radiography. 1999;5:131–146
  23. Greenhalgh T. Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses). In:  Greenhalgh T editors. How to read a paper: the basics of evidence based medicine. London: British Medical Journal; 1997;
  24. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. In:  Chalmers I,  Altman DG editor. Systematic reviews. London: British Medical Journal; 1995;p. 1–8
  25. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomised trials: explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2001;134:663–694
  26. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou P, Irwig LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative. Clinical Chemistry. 2003;49:1–6
  27. Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technology Assessment. 2004;8(25):
  28. Brealey S, Scally AJ, Thomas NB. Methodological standards in radiographer plain film reading performance studies. British Journal of Radiology. 2002;75:107–113
  29. Brealey S, Scally AJ. Bias in plain film reading performance studies. British Journal of Radiology. 2001;74:307–316
  30. Scally AJ, Brealey S. Confidence Intervals and Sample Size Calculations for studies of Film reading Performance. Clinical Radiology. 2003;58:238–246
  31. Swinburne K. Pattern recognition for radiographers. Lancet. 1971;1(7699):589–590
  32. Brealey S, Scally AJ, Hahn S, Thomas N, Godfrey C, Coomarasamy A. Radiographer plain radiograph reporting performance during clinical practice: a meta-analysis. Clinical Radiology. 2005;60:232–241
  33. McConnell JR, Webster AJ. Improving radiographer highlighting of trauma films in the Accident and Emergency department with a short course of study – an evaluation. British Journal of Radiology. 2000;73:608–612
  34. Mackay SJ. The impact of a short course of study on the performance of radiographers when highlighting fractures on trauma radiographs: “The Red Dot System”. British Journal of Radiology. 2006;79:468–472
  35. Piper KJ, Paterson AM, Godfrey RC. Accuracy of radiographers’ reports in the interpretation of radiographic examinations of the skeletal system: a review of 6796 cases. Radiography. 2005;11:27–34
  36. Brealey S, Scally AJ, Thomas NB. Presence of bias in radiographer plain film reading performance studies. Radiography. 2002;8:203–210
  37. Brealey SD, Scally AJ, Hahn S, Godfrey C. Evidence of reference standard related bias in studies of plain radiograph reading performance: a meta-regression. British Journal of Radiology. 2007;80:406–413
  38. Brealey SD, King DG, Hahn S, Crowe M, Williams P, Rutter P, et al. Radiographers and radiologists reporting plain radiograph requests from accident and emergency and general practice. Clinical Radiology. 2005;60:710–717
  39. Brealey SD, King DG, Crowe MTI, Crawshaw I, Ford L, Warnock NG, et al. Accident and emergency and general practitioner plain radiograph reporting by radiographers and radiologists: a quasi-randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Radiology. 2003;76:57–61
  40. Loughran CF. Reporting of fracture radiographs by radiographers: the impact of a training programme. British Journal of Radiology. 1994;67:945–950
  41. Brealey S, King DG, Hahn S, Godfrey C, Crowe MTI, Bloor K, et al. The costs and effects of introducing selectively trained radiographers to an A&E reporting service: a retrospective controlled before and after study. British Journal of Radiology. 2005;78:499–505
  42. Hansell DM, Wells AU. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Clinical Radiology. 2003;58:573–574
  43. Robinson PJA, Culpan G, Wiggins M. Interpretation of selected accident and emergency radiographic examinations by radiographers: a review of 11,000 cases. British Journal of Radiology. 1999;72:546–551
  44. Brealey S, Scally A, Hahn S, Thomas N, Godfrey C, Crane S. Accuracy of radiographers red dot or triage of accident and emergency radiographs in clinical practice: a systematic review. Clinical Radiology. 2006;61:604–615
  45. Littenberg B, Moses LE. Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports: a new meta-analytic method. Medical Decision Making. 1993;13:313–321
  46. Robinson PJA, Wilson D, Coral A, Murphy A, Verow P. Variation between experienced observers in the interpretation of accident and emergency radiographs. British Journal of Radiology. 1999;72:323–330
  47. Robinson PJA. Radiology's Achilles heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Roentgen image. British Journal of Radiology. 1997;70:1085–1098
  48. Egger M, Davey-Smith G. Principles of and procedure for systematic reviews. In:  Egger M,  Davey-Smith G,  Altman DG editor. Systematic reviews in Health Care: meta-analysis in context. London: British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2001;
  49. Pepe MS. The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003;
  50. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991;
  51. Matthews JNS. An introduction to randomised controlled clinical trials. London: Arnold; 2000;
  52. NLM Fact Sheet . www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/bsd.html[accessed 25 Oct 2007]
  53. Brian Haynes R, Wilczynshi N. Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of diagnosis from Medline: analytical survey. British Medical Journal. 2004;328:1040–1044
  54. Deeks J. Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. In:  Egger M,  Smith GD,  Altman G editor. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001;
  55. Brealey S, Westwood M. Are you reading what we are reading? The effect of who interprets medical images on diagnostic test accuracy in systematic reviews. British Journal of Radiology. 2007;80:674–677
  56. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS, Scholten RJPM, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2005;58:982–990

PII: S1078-8174(08)00002-3

doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2008.01.001

Radiography
Volume 14 , Pages e46-e54 , December 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution