Bias in plain film reading performance studies.

Radiographers and other healthcare professionals are becoming increasingly involved in radiological reporting, for instance plain radiographs, mammography and ultrasound. Systematic reviews of research evidence can help to assimilate a knowledge base by ordering and evaluating the available evidence on the reporting accuracy of different professional groups. This article reviews the biases that can undermine the results of plain film reading performance studies. These biases are subdivided into three categories. The first category refers to the selection of subjects, including both films and professionals, and covers the validity of generalizing results beyond the study population. The other two categories are concerned with study design and the interpretation both of films and of reports and the effect on study validity. An understanding of these biases is essential when designing such studies and when interpreting the results of existing studies.

[1]  C. M. Craven,et al.  COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY (CT) HEAD SCANS REPORTED BY AN EXPERIENCED CT RADIOGRAPHER , 1997 .

[2]  H E Rockette,et al.  Does knowledge of the clinical history affect the accuracy of chest radiograph interpretation? , 1990, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  F. Mosteller,et al.  A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. , 1992, JAMA.

[4]  P. Robinson,et al.  Variation between experienced observers in the interpretation of accident and emergency radiographs. , 1999, The British journal of radiology.

[5]  S. Meek,et al.  Can accident and emergency nurse practitioners interpret radiographs? A multicentre study. , 1998, Journal of accident & emergency medicine.

[6]  Y. T. van der Schouw,et al.  Guidelines for the Assessment of New Diagnostic Tests , 1995, Investigative radiology.

[7]  R A Greenes,et al.  Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. , 1983, Biometrics.

[8]  A R Feinstein,et al.  Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good. , 1995, JAMA.

[9]  A. Glenny,et al.  A framework for radiographers planning to undertake a systematic review , 1999 .

[10]  P. Robinson.  Short communication: plain film reporting by radiographers--a feasibility study. , 1996, The British journal of radiology.

[11]  J. Henderson,et al.  A COMPARISON OF INTERPRETATION OF SCREENING MAMMOGRAMS BY A RADIOGRAPHER, A DOCTOR AND A RADIOLOGIST: RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS , 1991, The British journal of clinical practice.

[12]  R A Greenes,et al.  Assessment of Diagnostic Technologies: Methodology for Unbiased Estimation from Samples of Selectively Verified Patients , 1985, Investigative radiology.

[13]  A. Dixon,et al.  Measuring the effects of imaging: an evaluative framework. , 1995, Clinical radiology.

[14]  A. Paterson.  Role development - towards 2000. A survey of role developments in radiography , 2000 .

[15]  R. Pauli,et al.  Radiographers as film readers in screening mammography: an assessment of competence under test and screening conditions. , 1996, The British journal of radiology.

[16]  V M Haughton,et al.  The effect of clinical bias on the interpretation of myelography and spinal computed tomography. , 1982, Radiology.

[17]  G. Guyatt,et al.  The Science of Reviewing Research a , 1993, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[18]  R Eban,et al.  Reducing errors in the accident department: a simple method using radiographers. , 1985, British medical journal.

[19]  M. Schreiber,et al.  The clinical history as a factor in roentgenogram interpretation. , 1963, JAMA.

[20]  A. Feinstein,et al.  Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. , 1978, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  B. C. Choi,et al.  Sensitivity and specificity of a single diagnostic test in the presence of work-up bias. , 1992, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[22]  P Doubilet,et al.  Interpretation of radiographs: effect of clinical history. , 1981, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  C F Loughran,et al.  Reporting of fracture radiographs by radiographers: the impact of a training programme. , 1994, The British journal of radiology.

[24]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[25]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Practical statistics for medical research , 1990 .

[26]  H. Irving,et al.  An audit of the role of the sonographer in non-obstetric ultrasound. , 1994, Clinical radiology.

[27]  D. Finlay,et al.  The importance of clinical details when reporting accident and emergency radiographs. , 1992, Injury.

[28]  K Berbaum,et al.  Influence of prior radiologic information on the interpretation of radiographic examinations. , 1995, Academic radiology.

[29]  C B Begg,et al.  Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. , 1987, Statistics in medicine.

[30]  H V Fineberg,et al.  Computerized cranial tomography. Effect on diagnostic and therapeutic plans. , 1977, JAMA.

[31]  Wilbur L. Smith,et al.  The role of previous radiographs and reports in the interpretation of current radiographs. , 1993 .

[32]  E Berry,et al.  The identification of bias in studies of the diagnostic performance of imaging modalities. , 1997, The British journal of radiology.

[33]  P. Robinson,et al.  Radiology's Achilles' heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Röntgen image. , 1997, The British journal of radiology.

[34]  A R Feinstein,et al.  XXXI. On the sensitivity, specificity, and discrimination of diagnostic tests , 1975, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[35]  W. Butt,et al.  How well can radiographers triage x ray films in accident and emergency departments? , 1991, BMJ.