Zoe Moran, Amber Loh, Annie K. Lewis, Paul Kelly, Amy M. Dennett
Introduction
Shoulder pathology is common, with many people referred for general radiography examinations. In performing these examinations, radiographers have a choice of more than 15 views to demonstrate the anatomy and pathology. The lack of guidelines for the best combination of orthogonal views in specific scenarios raises concerns for effectiveness, efficiency, and radiation safety. The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of the current practice by radiographers across Australia.
Methods
A national, cross-sectional online survey obtained data on the views and combination of views, (protocols) preferred by Australian radiographers across five common pathological presentations. The data were analysed descriptively.
Results
Data from 164 radiographers found a wide variation in shoulder imaging preferences; however, some common shoulder imaging protocols were identified for shoulder trauma presentations. The most variation and highest number of imaging protocols selected were for shoulder arthritis and impingement. Trauma and glenohumeral dislocation had the least variation and number of views selected. The three most common views across all pathologies were lateral Y scapula, anteroposterior general survey (neutral rotation), and true anteroposterior/Grashey (internal rotation). Radiographers working in private settings selected more views than those in public settings.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates a wide variation in image preferences of Australian radiographers performing shoulder imaging. However, some common shoulder imaging protocols were identified for shoulder trauma presentations. Greater standardisation of shoulder imaging protocols may reduce unnecessary patient risk and improve the patient experience.
{"title":"Radiographer Preferences for Shoulder x-Ray Imaging in Australia: A National Survey","authors":"Zoe Moran, Amber Loh, Annie K. Lewis, Paul Kelly, Amy M. Dennett","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.881","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.881","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Shoulder pathology is common, with many people referred for general radiography examinations. In performing these examinations, radiographers have a choice of more than 15 views to demonstrate the anatomy and pathology. The lack of guidelines for the best combination of orthogonal views in specific scenarios raises concerns for effectiveness, efficiency, and radiation safety. The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of the current practice by radiographers across Australia.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A national, cross-sectional online survey obtained data on the views and combination of views, (protocols) preferred by Australian radiographers across five common pathological presentations. The data were analysed descriptively.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Data from 164 radiographers found a wide variation in shoulder imaging preferences; however, some common shoulder imaging protocols were identified for shoulder trauma presentations. The most variation and highest number of imaging protocols selected were for shoulder arthritis and impingement. Trauma and glenohumeral dislocation had the least variation and number of views selected. The three most common views across all pathologies were lateral Y scapula, anteroposterior general survey (neutral rotation), and true anteroposterior/Grashey (internal rotation). Radiographers working in private settings selected more views than those in public settings.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study demonstrates a wide variation in image preferences of Australian radiographers performing shoulder imaging. However, some common shoulder imaging protocols were identified for shoulder trauma presentations. Greater standardisation of shoulder imaging protocols may reduce unnecessary patient risk and improve the patient experience.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"72 3","pages":"325-332"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.881","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144063900","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Junjie Huang PhD, Fung Yu Mak BSocSC, Yuet Yan Wong MPH, Sze Chai Chan MSc, Jonathan Poon MD, Ellen Tong MA, Clement S.K. Cheung PhD, Wing Nam Wong MD, Ngai Tseung Cheung MD, Martin C.S. Wong MD
Introduction
The electronic Health Record Sharing System (eHRSS) bridges public and private healthcare providers to efficiently share and access patient medical records. This study examined the acceptability, benefits and barriers of electronic Health Record (eHR) radiology image sharing as perceived by patients and physicians. This study found radiology image sharing can help improve the management and performance of medical services, but information asymmetry and insufficient publicity still affect the development of information sharing.
Methods
Physicians who were potential adopters of radiology image sharing system in Hong Kong were recruited for the quantitative study. In-depth interviews were conducted to examine acceptability, perceived benefits, barriers and potential areas for improvement of radiology image sharing system among physicians and patients. Other descriptive data collected included age, gender, clinical experience and practice type. Correlation between predictors, acceptability and perceived benefits were examined using linear and logistic regression analyses.
Results
A total of 288 surveys and 10 interviews were included. High level of user satisfaction (78.5%) with raised patient healthcare experience (82.3%) towards radiology image sharing system was observed. It was seen as highly capable to overcome limitations from using the films and traditional logistics (87.2%). System quality was a significant factor associated with acceptability (aOR = 4.307, 95% CI: 1.815–10.223, p = 0.001). Healthcare Professionals (HCPs) displayed high acceptability towards all system features, tracking patient history in particular. Patients expressed positive attitudes towards radiology image sharing and it is helpful for selecting radiology centres.
Conclusions
Particular features of radiology image sharing were associated with positive user acceptability and perceptions. Recommendations included enhancing promotional efforts, encouraging private institutions to enrol, data confidentiality reassurance and granting same level access to patient and provider.
简介：电子健康记录共享系统（eHRSS）连接公共和私人医疗保健提供者，以有效地共享和访问患者的医疗记录。本研究考察了患者和医生对电子健康记录（eHR）放射学图像共享的可接受性、益处和障碍。本研究发现，影像学图像共享有助于改善医疗服务的管理和绩效，但信息不对称和宣传不足仍然影响着信息共享的发展。方法：在香港招募可能采用放射影像共享系统的医师进行定量研究。通过深入访谈，研究了医生和患者对放射学图像共享系统的可接受性、感知益处、障碍和潜在改进领域。收集的其他描述性数据包括年龄、性别、临床经验和执业类型。使用线性和逻辑回归分析检验预测因子、可接受性和感知效益之间的相关性。结果：共纳入问卷288份，访谈10次。观察到用户满意度（78.5%）较高，患者医疗体验（82.3%）提高放射图像共享系统。87.2%的人认为，它很有能力克服使用电影和传统物流的限制。系统质量是与可接受性相关的重要因素（aOR = 4.307, 95% CI: 1.815-10.223, p = 0.001）。医疗保健专业人员（HCPs）对所有系统功能都表现出高度的可接受性，特别是跟踪患者病史。患者对影像共享持积极态度，有助于选择影像中心。结论：放射学图像共享的特定特征与积极的用户可接受性和感知相关。建议包括加强宣传工作，鼓励私营机构参与，保证数据保密，并给予患者和提供者同等的访问权限。
{"title":"Acceptability, benefits and barriers of electronic health record radiology image sharing: A mixed-method study","authors":"Junjie Huang PhD, Fung Yu Mak BSocSC, Yuet Yan Wong MPH, Sze Chai Chan MSc, Jonathan Poon MD, Ellen Tong MA, Clement S.K. Cheung PhD, Wing Nam Wong MD, Ngai Tseung Cheung MD, Martin C.S. Wong MD","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.853","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.853","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The electronic Health Record Sharing System (eHRSS) bridges public and private healthcare providers to efficiently share and access patient medical records. This study examined the acceptability, benefits and barriers of electronic Health Record (eHR) radiology image sharing as perceived by patients and physicians. This study found radiology image sharing can help improve the management and performance of medical services, but information asymmetry and insufficient publicity still affect the development of information sharing.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Physicians who were potential adopters of radiology image sharing system in Hong Kong were recruited for the quantitative study. In-depth interviews were conducted to examine acceptability, perceived benefits, barriers and potential areas for improvement of radiology image sharing system among physicians and patients. Other descriptive data collected included age, gender, clinical experience and practice type. Correlation between predictors, acceptability and perceived benefits were examined using linear and logistic regression analyses.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 288 surveys and 10 interviews were included. High level of user satisfaction (78.5%) with raised patient healthcare experience (82.3%) towards radiology image sharing system was observed. It was seen as highly capable to overcome limitations from using the films and traditional logistics (87.2%). System quality was a significant factor associated with acceptability (aOR = 4.307, 95% CI: 1.815–10.223, <i>p</i> = 0.001). Healthcare Professionals (HCPs) displayed high acceptability towards all system features, tracking patient history in particular. Patients expressed positive attitudes towards radiology image sharing and it is helpful for selecting radiology centres.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Particular features of radiology image sharing were associated with positive user acceptability and perceptions. Recommendations included enhancing promotional efforts, encouraging private institutions to enrol, data confidentiality reassurance and granting same level access to patient and provider.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"72 2","pages":"244-254"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.853","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143730371","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Laura Feighan, Lesley MacDonald-Wicks, Robin Callister, Yolanda Surjan
Introduction
Women with breast cancer receiving radiation therapy (RT) can experience treatment side effects and compromised quality of life. The quality of a person's diet can play a vital role in preventing cancer and other chronic diseases. Despite this, studies show many Australians do not meet the recommended guidelines for consuming a quality diet. Currently, women with breast cancer receiving RT are not routinely provided nutritional support, highlighting a possible gap in the comprehensive care of this population. This study aims to explore the dietary practices of women with breast cancer receiving RT and their perceptions of nutritional support during treatment. Furthermore, an investigation of the radiation therapists' role in providing nutritional support is considered.
Methods
A cross-sectional study design was implemented via an online survey. The survey was offered to women with breast cancer receiving RT in Australia's Capital Territory, New South Wales and Queensland regions. The survey comprised 70 questions focused on exercise, nutritional habits and overall health. The Short Dietary Questions were used specifically for the nutrition-based questions.
Results
Ninety women completed the survey; none met all recommended dietary guidelines, with only 33% consuming recommended fruit servings and 12% meeting vegetable requirements daily. While half the women reported receiving dietary guidance during RT, the content and quality of advice are unclear.
Conclusion
This study highlights both the dietary patterns of women with breast cancer receiving RT and their unmet needs for nutritional guidance. While nutritional support is crucial for patient wellbeing during cancer treatment, further research is needed to determine optimal approaches for diet education delivery. Specifically, investigation into how radiation therapists can effectively integrate evidence-based nutritional support into their practice to improve patient care.
{"title":"Fuelling Recovery: Is There a Role for Radiation Therapists in Optimising Nutrition for Women With Breast Cancer?","authors":"Laura Feighan, Lesley MacDonald-Wicks, Robin Callister, Yolanda Surjan","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.874","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.874","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Women with breast cancer receiving radiation therapy (RT) can experience treatment side effects and compromised quality of life. The quality of a person's diet can play a vital role in preventing cancer and other chronic diseases. Despite this, studies show many Australians do not meet the recommended guidelines for consuming a quality diet. Currently, women with breast cancer receiving RT are not routinely provided nutritional support, highlighting a possible gap in the comprehensive care of this population. This study aims to explore the dietary practices of women with breast cancer receiving RT and their perceptions of nutritional support during treatment. Furthermore, an investigation of the radiation therapists' role in providing nutritional support is considered.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A cross-sectional study design was implemented via an online survey. The survey was offered to women with breast cancer receiving RT in Australia's Capital Territory, New South Wales and Queensland regions. The survey comprised 70 questions focused on exercise, nutritional habits and overall health. The Short Dietary Questions were used specifically for the nutrition-based questions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Ninety women completed the survey; none met all recommended dietary guidelines, with only 33% consuming recommended fruit servings and 12% meeting vegetable requirements daily. While half the women reported receiving dietary guidance during RT, the content and quality of advice are unclear.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study highlights both the dietary patterns of women with breast cancer receiving RT and their unmet needs for nutritional guidance. While nutritional support is crucial for patient wellbeing during cancer treatment, further research is needed to determine optimal approaches for diet education delivery. Specifically, investigation into how radiation therapists can effectively integrate evidence-based nutritional support into their practice to improve patient care.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"72 3","pages":"350-360"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.874","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143730372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Michelle P. Li, Adam Yeo, Kirsty Wiltshire, Claire Phillips, Joseph Sia, Greg Wheeler, Lisa Hall
This correspondence is in response to the Letter to the Editor “Evaluating Proton Versus Photon Therapy: A Call for Nuanced Decision-Making”. A balanced evidence-based approach that is patient-centred is needed when deciding between proton versus photon radiotherapy.
{"title":"Response to Letter to the Editor Regarding ‘Is Proton Beam Therapy Always Better Than Photon Irradiation? Lessons From Two Cases’","authors":"Michelle P. Li, Adam Yeo, Kirsty Wiltshire, Claire Phillips, Joseph Sia, Greg Wheeler, Lisa Hall","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.872","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.872","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This correspondence is in response to the Letter to the Editor “Evaluating Proton Versus Photon Therapy: A Call for Nuanced Decision-Making”. A balanced evidence-based approach that is patient-centred is needed when deciding between proton versus photon radiotherapy.\u0000 <figure>\u0000 <div><picture>\u0000 <source></source></picture><p></p>\u0000 </div>\u0000 </figure></p>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"72 2","pages":"266-267"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.872","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143719892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Maximise your continuing professional development (CPD) by reading the following selected article and answering the five questions. Please remember to self-claim your CPD and retain your supporting evidence. Answers will be available via the QR code and published in JMRS—Volume 72, Issue 4, December 2025.
{"title":"Continuing Professional Development—Radiation Therapy","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.879","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.879","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Maximise your continuing professional development (CPD) by reading the following selected article and answering the five questions. Please remember to self-claim your CPD and retain your supporting evidence. Answers will be available via the QR code and published in JMRS—Volume 72, Issue 4, December 2025.</p>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"72 S2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.879","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143657319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This editorial provides insight into value-based healthcare in Australia, including organisations such as New South Wales (NSW) Health, which has a focus on implementing and scaling value-based healthcare. This includes exemplary programmes in applying value-based principles in commissioning medical imaging services and expanding hypofractionation radiation therapy for breast cancer patients across the system. This special issue also showcases research in value-based healthcare and its application in medical radiation sciences in the areas of artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR), computed tomography (CT) and hypofractionated radiation therapy.
{"title":"Value-Based Healthcare—What Does it Look Like for Medical Radiation Sciences in the Australian Context?","authors":"Andrew Davison","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.877","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jmrs.877","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This editorial provides insight into value-based healthcare in Australia, including organisations such as New South Wales (NSW) Health, which has a focus on implementing and scaling value-based healthcare. This includes exemplary programmes in applying value-based principles in commissioning medical imaging services and expanding hypofractionation radiation therapy for breast cancer patients across the system. This special issue also showcases research in value-based healthcare and its application in medical radiation sciences in the areas of artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR), computed tomography (CT) and hypofractionated radiation therapy.\u0000 <figure>\u0000 <div><picture>\u0000 <source></source></picture><p></p>\u0000 </div>\u0000 </figure></p>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"72 S2","pages":"S3-S5"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.877","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143624957","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Oral Abstracts","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.863","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.863","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"72 S1","pages":"4-78"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.863","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143554714","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Introduction: Radiographer preliminary image evaluation (PIE) is a patient safety mechanism where radiographers provide a written comment describing potential pathology in radiographs they have acquired. This can assist emergency referrers in making a diagnosis when a radiologist's report is unavailable. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of radiographer PIE in interpreting paediatric trauma radiographs in an Australian emergency department.
Methods: A randomised sample of paediatric radiographic examinations (aged 16 years and under) from January 2022 to June 2023 was retrospectively reviewed. The anatomical regions reviewed included the appendicular and axial skeleton, chest and abdomen. The PIE for each examination was compared to the radiologist report to indicate if the radiographer's evaluation was a true negative/positive or false negative/positive value. This was used to calculate mean sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy. Discrepant PIE interpretations were further investigated.
Results: A total of 498 PIEs were reviewed. The overall accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were 93.3%, 84.3% and 98.1%, respectively. Cases with no participation and those marked as unsure for pathology represented 0.4% and 2.6% of the sample, respectively. The extremities were identified as a region frequently misinterpreted.
Conclusion: Radiographers in this study maintained a high diagnostic accuracy in interpreting paediatric radiographs. PIE may complement the emergency referrer's diagnosis when a radiologist report is unavailable to promote appropriate and timely treatment for paediatric patients in the emergency department. Further research with a larger sample may support targeted training to improve PIE performance in regions frequently misinterpreted.
{"title":"Radiographer Preliminary Image Evaluation Accuracy in Interpreting Paediatric Trauma Radiographs.","authors":"Teresa Poon, Michael Neep, Therese Gunn","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.876","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.876","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Radiographer preliminary image evaluation (PIE) is a patient safety mechanism where radiographers provide a written comment describing potential pathology in radiographs they have acquired. This can assist emergency referrers in making a diagnosis when a radiologist's report is unavailable. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of radiographer PIE in interpreting paediatric trauma radiographs in an Australian emergency department.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A randomised sample of paediatric radiographic examinations (aged 16 years and under) from January 2022 to June 2023 was retrospectively reviewed. The anatomical regions reviewed included the appendicular and axial skeleton, chest and abdomen. The PIE for each examination was compared to the radiologist report to indicate if the radiographer's evaluation was a true negative/positive or false negative/positive value. This was used to calculate mean sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy. Discrepant PIE interpretations were further investigated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 498 PIEs were reviewed. The overall accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were 93.3%, 84.3% and 98.1%, respectively. Cases with no participation and those marked as unsure for pathology represented 0.4% and 2.6% of the sample, respectively. The extremities were identified as a region frequently misinterpreted.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Radiographers in this study maintained a high diagnostic accuracy in interpreting paediatric radiographs. PIE may complement the emergency referrer's diagnosis when a radiologist report is unavailable to promote appropriate and timely treatment for paediatric patients in the emergency department. Further research with a larger sample may support targeted training to improve PIE performance in regions frequently misinterpreted.</p>","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143557125","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Sponsor Acknowledgement","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/jmrs.862","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.862","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences","volume":"72 S1","pages":"1-3"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmrs.862","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143554713","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号