Loading…

Agreement in the reporting of General Practitioner requested musculoskeletal radiographs: Reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists compared with an index radiologist

This study assessed the inter-observer agreement of reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists compared with an index radiologist when reporting General Practitioner (GP) requested musculoskeletal radiographs. The potential effect of discordant reports on patient management and outcome was...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Radiography (London, England. 1995) England. 1995), 2022-05, Vol.28 (2), p.288-295
Main Authors: Cain, G., Pittock, L.J., Piper, K., Venumbaka, M.R., Bodoceanu, M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-64259632bfe13b2a9fba0ee3c3332eeaa46543c701e63c5f19e0be30c4ba27ef3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-64259632bfe13b2a9fba0ee3c3332eeaa46543c701e63c5f19e0be30c4ba27ef3
container_end_page 295
container_issue 2
container_start_page 288
container_title Radiography (London, England. 1995)
container_volume 28
creator Cain, G.
Pittock, L.J.
Piper, K.
Venumbaka, M.R.
Bodoceanu, M.
description This study assessed the inter-observer agreement of reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists compared with an index radiologist when reporting General Practitioner (GP) requested musculoskeletal radiographs. The potential effect of discordant reports on patient management and outcome was also examined. Three reporting radiographers, three consultant radiologists and an index radiologist reported on a retrospective randomised sample of 219 GP requested musculoskeletal radiographs, in conditions simulating clinical practice. A speciality doctor in radiology compared the observers’ reports with the index radiologist report for agreement and assessed whether any discordance between reports was clinically important. Overall agreement with the index radiologist was 47.0% (95% CI, 40.5–53.6) and 51.6% (95% CI, 45.0–58.1) for the consultant radiologists and reporting radiographers, respectively. The results for the appendicular and axial skeleton were 48.6% (95% CI, 41.3–55.9) and 40.9% (95% CI, 27.7–55.6) for the radiologists, and 52.6% (95% CI, 45.2–59.8) and 47.7% (95% CI, 33.8–62.1) for the radiographers, respectively. The difference in overall observer agreement between the two professional groups with the index radiologist was not statistically significant (p = 0.34). Discordance with the index radiologist's reports was judged to be clinically important in less than 10% of the observer's reports. Reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists demonstrate similar levels of concordance with an index radiologist when reporting GP requested musculoskeletal radiographs. These findings contribute to the wider evidence base that selected radiographers with appropriate postgraduate education and training are proficient to report on musculoskeletal radiographs, irrespective of referral source.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.radi.2021.12.004
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2618502212</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1078817421001954</els_id><sourcerecordid>2618502212</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-64259632bfe13b2a9fba0ee3c3332eeaa46543c701e63c5f19e0be30c4ba27ef3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kctu2zAQRYkiRZM6-YEsCi67kUoOJVkusjGCJC1goEHQrgmKGtl0JFEhqTz-qp9Y-hGnq6w4HJ65nItLyDlnKWe8-LZOnapNCgx4yiFlLPtATnguIIFS8KNYs2mZlHyaHZPP3q8ZY5BB-YkcizzWZTE7IX_nS4fYYR-o6WlYIXU4WBdMv6S2oTfYo1MtvXVKBxOMjddIPIzoA9a0G70eW-vvscUQsc0-dunUsPLf6d1B6K2NzlPV11Tb3o9tUPHb7WNrl8YHH_vdoFxUfjJhFcm4VI3P_zOn5GOjWo9n-3NC_lxf_b78kSx-3fy8nC8SLfIiJEUG-awQUDXIRQVq1lSKIQothABEpbIiz4SeMo6F0HnDZ8gqFExnlYIpNmJCvu50B2e3dmVnvMa2VT3a0UsoeJkzAA4RhR2qnfXeYSMHZzrlXiRncpOUXMuNA7lJSnKQMak49GWvP1Yd1oeR12gicLEDMLp8NOik1wZ7jbVxqIOsrXlP_x_5Narw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2618502212</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Agreement in the reporting of General Practitioner requested musculoskeletal radiographs: Reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists compared with an index radiologist</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Cain, G. ; Pittock, L.J. ; Piper, K. ; Venumbaka, M.R. ; Bodoceanu, M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Cain, G. ; Pittock, L.J. ; Piper, K. ; Venumbaka, M.R. ; Bodoceanu, M.</creatorcontrib><description>This study assessed the inter-observer agreement of reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists compared with an index radiologist when reporting General Practitioner (GP) requested musculoskeletal radiographs. The potential effect of discordant reports on patient management and outcome was also examined. Three reporting radiographers, three consultant radiologists and an index radiologist reported on a retrospective randomised sample of 219 GP requested musculoskeletal radiographs, in conditions simulating clinical practice. A speciality doctor in radiology compared the observers’ reports with the index radiologist report for agreement and assessed whether any discordance between reports was clinically important. Overall agreement with the index radiologist was 47.0% (95% CI, 40.5–53.6) and 51.6% (95% CI, 45.0–58.1) for the consultant radiologists and reporting radiographers, respectively. The results for the appendicular and axial skeleton were 48.6% (95% CI, 41.3–55.9) and 40.9% (95% CI, 27.7–55.6) for the radiologists, and 52.6% (95% CI, 45.2–59.8) and 47.7% (95% CI, 33.8–62.1) for the radiographers, respectively. The difference in overall observer agreement between the two professional groups with the index radiologist was not statistically significant (p = 0.34). Discordance with the index radiologist's reports was judged to be clinically important in less than 10% of the observer's reports. Reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists demonstrate similar levels of concordance with an index radiologist when reporting GP requested musculoskeletal radiographs. These findings contribute to the wider evidence base that selected radiographers with appropriate postgraduate education and training are proficient to report on musculoskeletal radiographs, irrespective of referral source.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1078-8174</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-2831</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2021.12.004</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35000869</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Agreement ; Consultants ; General Practitioners ; Humans ; Musculoskeletal ; Radiographer ; Radiography ; Radiologist ; Radiologists ; Reporting ; Retrospective Studies ; X-ray</subject><ispartof>Radiography (London, England. 1995), 2022-05, Vol.28 (2), p.288-295</ispartof><rights>2021 The College of Radiographers</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 The College of Radiographers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-64259632bfe13b2a9fba0ee3c3332eeaa46543c701e63c5f19e0be30c4ba27ef3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-64259632bfe13b2a9fba0ee3c3332eeaa46543c701e63c5f19e0be30c4ba27ef3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35000869$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cain, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pittock, L.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Piper, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Venumbaka, M.R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bodoceanu, M.</creatorcontrib><title>Agreement in the reporting of General Practitioner requested musculoskeletal radiographs: Reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists compared with an index radiologist</title><title>Radiography (London, England. 1995)</title><addtitle>Radiography (Lond)</addtitle><description>This study assessed the inter-observer agreement of reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists compared with an index radiologist when reporting General Practitioner (GP) requested musculoskeletal radiographs. The potential effect of discordant reports on patient management and outcome was also examined. Three reporting radiographers, three consultant radiologists and an index radiologist reported on a retrospective randomised sample of 219 GP requested musculoskeletal radiographs, in conditions simulating clinical practice. A speciality doctor in radiology compared the observers’ reports with the index radiologist report for agreement and assessed whether any discordance between reports was clinically important. Overall agreement with the index radiologist was 47.0% (95% CI, 40.5–53.6) and 51.6% (95% CI, 45.0–58.1) for the consultant radiologists and reporting radiographers, respectively. The results for the appendicular and axial skeleton were 48.6% (95% CI, 41.3–55.9) and 40.9% (95% CI, 27.7–55.6) for the radiologists, and 52.6% (95% CI, 45.2–59.8) and 47.7% (95% CI, 33.8–62.1) for the radiographers, respectively. The difference in overall observer agreement between the two professional groups with the index radiologist was not statistically significant (p = 0.34). Discordance with the index radiologist's reports was judged to be clinically important in less than 10% of the observer's reports. Reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists demonstrate similar levels of concordance with an index radiologist when reporting GP requested musculoskeletal radiographs. These findings contribute to the wider evidence base that selected radiographers with appropriate postgraduate education and training are proficient to report on musculoskeletal radiographs, irrespective of referral source.</description><subject>Agreement</subject><subject>Consultants</subject><subject>General Practitioners</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Musculoskeletal</subject><subject>Radiographer</subject><subject>Radiography</subject><subject>Radiologist</subject><subject>Radiologists</subject><subject>Reporting</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>X-ray</subject><issn>1078-8174</issn><issn>1532-2831</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kctu2zAQRYkiRZM6-YEsCi67kUoOJVkusjGCJC1goEHQrgmKGtl0JFEhqTz-qp9Y-hGnq6w4HJ65nItLyDlnKWe8-LZOnapNCgx4yiFlLPtATnguIIFS8KNYs2mZlHyaHZPP3q8ZY5BB-YkcizzWZTE7IX_nS4fYYR-o6WlYIXU4WBdMv6S2oTfYo1MtvXVKBxOMjddIPIzoA9a0G70eW-vvscUQsc0-dunUsPLf6d1B6K2NzlPV11Tb3o9tUPHb7WNrl8YHH_vdoFxUfjJhFcm4VI3P_zOn5GOjWo9n-3NC_lxf_b78kSx-3fy8nC8SLfIiJEUG-awQUDXIRQVq1lSKIQothABEpbIiz4SeMo6F0HnDZ8gqFExnlYIpNmJCvu50B2e3dmVnvMa2VT3a0UsoeJkzAA4RhR2qnfXeYSMHZzrlXiRncpOUXMuNA7lJSnKQMak49GWvP1Yd1oeR12gicLEDMLp8NOik1wZ7jbVxqIOsrXlP_x_5Narw</recordid><startdate>202205</startdate><enddate>202205</enddate><creator>Cain, G.</creator><creator>Pittock, L.J.</creator><creator>Piper, K.</creator><creator>Venumbaka, M.R.</creator><creator>Bodoceanu, M.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202205</creationdate><title>Agreement in the reporting of General Practitioner requested musculoskeletal radiographs: Reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists compared with an index radiologist</title><author>Cain, G. ; Pittock, L.J. ; Piper, K. ; Venumbaka, M.R. ; Bodoceanu, M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-64259632bfe13b2a9fba0ee3c3332eeaa46543c701e63c5f19e0be30c4ba27ef3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Agreement</topic><topic>Consultants</topic><topic>General Practitioners</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Musculoskeletal</topic><topic>Radiographer</topic><topic>Radiography</topic><topic>Radiologist</topic><topic>Radiologists</topic><topic>Reporting</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>X-ray</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cain, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pittock, L.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Piper, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Venumbaka, M.R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bodoceanu, M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Radiography (London, England. 1995)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cain, G.</au><au>Pittock, L.J.</au><au>Piper, K.</au><au>Venumbaka, M.R.</au><au>Bodoceanu, M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Agreement in the reporting of General Practitioner requested musculoskeletal radiographs: Reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists compared with an index radiologist</atitle><jtitle>Radiography (London, England. 1995)</jtitle><addtitle>Radiography (Lond)</addtitle><date>2022-05</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>288</spage><epage>295</epage><pages>288-295</pages><issn>1078-8174</issn><eissn>1532-2831</eissn><abstract>This study assessed the inter-observer agreement of reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists compared with an index radiologist when reporting General Practitioner (GP) requested musculoskeletal radiographs. The potential effect of discordant reports on patient management and outcome was also examined. Three reporting radiographers, three consultant radiologists and an index radiologist reported on a retrospective randomised sample of 219 GP requested musculoskeletal radiographs, in conditions simulating clinical practice. A speciality doctor in radiology compared the observers’ reports with the index radiologist report for agreement and assessed whether any discordance between reports was clinically important. Overall agreement with the index radiologist was 47.0% (95% CI, 40.5–53.6) and 51.6% (95% CI, 45.0–58.1) for the consultant radiologists and reporting radiographers, respectively. The results for the appendicular and axial skeleton were 48.6% (95% CI, 41.3–55.9) and 40.9% (95% CI, 27.7–55.6) for the radiologists, and 52.6% (95% CI, 45.2–59.8) and 47.7% (95% CI, 33.8–62.1) for the radiographers, respectively. The difference in overall observer agreement between the two professional groups with the index radiologist was not statistically significant (p = 0.34). Discordance with the index radiologist's reports was judged to be clinically important in less than 10% of the observer's reports. Reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists demonstrate similar levels of concordance with an index radiologist when reporting GP requested musculoskeletal radiographs. These findings contribute to the wider evidence base that selected radiographers with appropriate postgraduate education and training are proficient to report on musculoskeletal radiographs, irrespective of referral source.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>35000869</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.radi.2021.12.004</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1078-8174
ispartof Radiography (London, England. 1995), 2022-05, Vol.28 (2), p.288-295
issn 1078-8174
1532-2831
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2618502212
source ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Agreement
Consultants
General Practitioners
Humans
Musculoskeletal
Radiographer
Radiography
Radiologist
Radiologists
Reporting
Retrospective Studies
X-ray
title Agreement in the reporting of General Practitioner requested musculoskeletal radiographs: Reporting radiographers and consultant radiologists compared with an index radiologist
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T01%3A48%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Agreement%20in%20the%20reporting%20of%20General%20Practitioner%20requested%20musculoskeletal%20radiographs:%20Reporting%20radiographers%20and%20consultant%20radiologists%20compared%20with%20an%20index%20radiologist&rft.jtitle=Radiography%20(London,%20England.%201995)&rft.au=Cain,%20G.&rft.date=2022-05&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=288&rft.epage=295&rft.pages=288-295&rft.issn=1078-8174&rft.eissn=1532-2831&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.radi.2021.12.004&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2618502212%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-64259632bfe13b2a9fba0ee3c3332eeaa46543c701e63c5f19e0be30c4ba27ef3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2618502212&rft_id=info:pmid/35000869&rfr_iscdi=true