To repeat or not to repeat: Radiologists demonstrated more decisiveness than their fellow radiographers in reducing the repeat rate during mobile chest radiography

dc.contributor.authorSaade, Charbel
dc.contributor.authorSiblini, L.
dc.contributor.authorKarout, Lina
dc.contributor.authorKhalife, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorHilal, H.
dc.contributor.authorAbbas, S.
dc.contributor.authorSalman, Rida
dc.contributor.authorNaffaa, Lena N.
dc.contributor.departmentDiagnostic Radiology
dc.contributor.facultyFaculty of Health Sciences (FHS)
dc.contributor.facultyFaculty of Medicine (FM)
dc.contributor.institutionAmerican University of Beirut
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-24T11:41:12Z
dc.date.available2025-01-24T11:41:12Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Radiologists and radiographers play a complementary role in providing an optimal image quality with decrease radiation dose and proper diagnosis during chest radiographs. We aim Investigate years of experience among radiologists and radiographers on perception of image quality and its impact on repeat rate when evaluating portable pediatric chest radiographs. Methods: IRB approved retrospective study consisted of randomly selected images (n = 131) of pediatric portable chest radiographs. Images were blindly assessed by four radiologists and four radiographers. Readers were asked to assess qualitative and quantitative image quality by rating: image quality, decision to repeat and image technique. All data was compared employing Pearson's Correlation, Visual grading characteristic (VGC) and Cohens' kappa analyses. Results: Image quality: Radiologists (88.4%) rated images as excellent significantly more than radiographers (11.6%), and radiographers (90.1%) as poor significantly more than radiologists (9.9%) (p < 0.05). Repeat: Radiologists (57%) decided not to repeat images significantly more than radiographers (43%) (p < 0.05). Image technique: Radiologists rated images as acceptable (65%) and excellent (97.7%) significantly more than radiographers (35% and 2.3% respectively) (p < 0.05), whereas radiographers (84%) assessed image technique as poor significantly more than radiologists (16%) (p < 0.05). VGC: radiographers had slightly better qualitative evaluation of image quality than radiologists. An association between image quality (p < 0.002) and repeat decision (p < 0.044) with years of experience was established when comparing years of experience with image assessment rubric, while no association was noted with image technique (p < 0.9). Conclusion: Radiologists demonstrated more decisiveness than their fellow radiographers in reducing the repeat rate of portable pediatric chest radiographs. Interestingly, years of experience only seem to affect image technique and image quality assessment among radiologists. Implications for practice: Continuous education of radiographers and close collaboration with radiologists is crucial to achieve optimal image quality and low radiation doses. © 2020 The College of Radiographers
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2020.09.003
dc.identifier.eid2-s2.0-85092010753
dc.identifier.pmid33023812
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10938/29704
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherW.B. Saunders Ltd
dc.relation.ispartofRadiography
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectChest radiograph
dc.subjectImage quality
dc.subjectRadiographers
dc.subjectRadiologists
dc.subjectAllied health personnel
dc.subjectChild
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectRadiography
dc.subjectRadiography, thoracic
dc.subjectRetrospective studies
dc.subjectArticle
dc.subjectControlled study
dc.subjectEducation
dc.subjectHuman
dc.subjectHuman experiment
dc.subjectMajor clinical study
dc.subjectPerception
dc.subjectQualitative analysis
dc.subjectQuantitative analysis
dc.subjectRadiation dose
dc.subjectRadiographer
dc.subjectRadiologist
dc.subjectRetrospective study
dc.subjectThorax radiography
dc.subjectParamedical personnel
dc.titleTo repeat or not to repeat: Radiologists demonstrated more decisiveness than their fellow radiographers in reducing the repeat rate during mobile chest radiography
dc.typeArticle

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2021-2614.pdf
Size:
666.13 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format