Methodological standards in radiographer plain film reading performance studies

被引:33
作者
Brealey, S [1 ]
Scally, AJ
Thomas, NB
机构
[1] Univ York, Dept Hlth Sci, York YO1 5DD, N Yorkshire, England
[2] Univ Bradford, Div Radiog, Bradford BD5 0BB, W Yorkshire, England
[3] N Manchester Grp Hosp, Xray Dept A, Manchester M8 5RB, Lancs, England
关键词
D O I
10.1259/bjr.75.890.750107
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:107 / 113
页数:7
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]  
Altmann DG, 1991, PRACTICAL STAT MED R, P440
[2]  
[Anonymous], ROLE DEV 2000 SURVEY
[3]   HOW MANY PATIENTS ARE NECESSARY TO ASSESS TEST-PERFORMANCE [J].
ARKIN, CF ;
WACHTEL, MS .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1990, 263 (02) :275-276
[4]   BIASES IN THE ASSESSMENT OF DIAGNOSTIC-TESTS [J].
BEGG, CB .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 1987, 6 (04) :411-423
[5]   Bias in plain film reading performance studies [J].
Brealey, S ;
Scally, AJ .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2001, 74 (880) :307-316
[6]  
Brealey S, 2001, CLIN RADIOL, V56, P341, DOI 10.1053/crad.2001.0678
[7]  
*COLL RAD, 1996, ROL DEV RAD
[8]  
Cook TD, 1979, QuasiExperimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings, P1
[9]   COMPUTERIZED CRANIAL TOMOGRAPHY - EFFECT ON DIAGNOSTIC AND THERAPEUTIC PLANS [J].
FINEBERG, HV ;
BAUMAN, R ;
SOSMAN, M .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1977, 238 (03) :224-227
[10]   EVALUATING AND COMPARING IMAGING TECHNIQUES - A REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION OF STUDY DESIGNS [J].
FREEDMAN, LS .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 1987, 60 (719) :1071-1081