Eintrag weiter verarbeiten
Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review
Gespeichert in:
| Zeitschriftentitel: | Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences |
|---|---|
| Personen und Körperschaften: | , , , |
| In: | Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences, 66, 2019, 4, S. 269-283 |
| Format: | E-Article |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| veröffentlicht: |
Wiley
|
| Schlagwörter: |
| author_facet |
Murphy, Andrew Ekpo, Ernest Steffens, Thomas Neep, Michael J. Murphy, Andrew Ekpo, Ernest Steffens, Thomas Neep, Michael J. |
|---|---|
| author |
Murphy, Andrew Ekpo, Ernest Steffens, Thomas Neep, Michael J. |
| spellingShingle |
Murphy, Andrew Ekpo, Ernest Steffens, Thomas Neep, Michael J. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging Radiological and Ultrasound Technology |
| author_sort |
murphy, andrew |
| spelling |
Murphy, Andrew Ekpo, Ernest Steffens, Thomas Neep, Michael J. 2051-3895 2051-3909 Wiley Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging Radiological and Ultrasound Technology http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.356 <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Introduction</jats:title><jats:p>Radiographer image evaluation methods such as the preliminary image evaluation (PIE), a formal comment describing radiographers’ findings in radiological images, are embedded in the contemporary radiographer role within Australia. However, perceptions surrounding both the capacity for Australian radiographers to adopt PIE and the barriers to its implementation are highly variable and seldom evidence‐based. This paper systematically reviews the literature to examine radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers and the barriers to implementation.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses were used to systematically review articles via Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, ScienceDirect and Informit. Articles were deemed eligible for inclusion if they were English language, peer‐reviewed and explored radiographic image interpretation by radiographers in the context of the Australian healthcare system. Letters to the editor, opinion pieces, reviews and reports were excluded.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>A total of 926 studies were screened for relevance, 19 articles met the inclusion criteria. The 19 articles consisted of 11 cohort studies, seven cross‐sectional surveys and one randomised control trial. Studies exploring radiographers’ image interpretation performance utilised a variety of methodological designs with accuracy, sensitivity and specificity values ranging from 57 to 98%, 45 to 98% and 68 to 98%, respectively. Primary barriers to radiographic image evaluation by radiographers included lack of accessible educational resources and support from both radiologists and radiographers.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>Australian radiographers can undertake PIE; however, educational and clinical support barriers limit implementation. Access to targeted education and a clear definition of radiographers’ image evaluation role may drive a wider acceptance of radiographer image evaluation in Australia.</jats:p></jats:sec> Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1002/jmrs.356 |
| facet_avail |
Online Free |
| finc_class_facet |
Medizin Technik Physik |
| format |
ElectronicArticle |
| fullrecord |
blob:ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTAwMi9qbXJzLjM1Ng |
| id |
ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTAwMi9qbXJzLjM1Ng |
| institution |
DE-D275 DE-Bn3 DE-Brt1 DE-D161 DE-Zwi2 DE-Gla1 DE-Zi4 DE-15 DE-Pl11 DE-Rs1 DE-105 DE-14 DE-Ch1 DE-L229 |
| imprint |
Wiley, 2019 |
| imprint_str_mv |
Wiley, 2019 |
| issn |
2051-3909 2051-3895 |
| issn_str_mv |
2051-3909 2051-3895 |
| language |
English |
| mega_collection |
Wiley (CrossRef) |
| match_str |
murphy2019radiographicimageinterpretationbyaustralianradiographersasystematicreview |
| publishDateSort |
2019 |
| publisher |
Wiley |
| recordtype |
ai |
| record_format |
ai |
| series |
Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences |
| source_id |
49 |
| title |
Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review |
| title_unstemmed |
Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review |
| title_full |
Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review |
| title_fullStr |
Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review |
| title_short |
Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review |
| title_sort |
radiographic image interpretation by australian radiographers: a systematic review |
| topic |
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging Radiological and Ultrasound Technology |
| url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.356 |
| publishDate |
2019 |
| physical |
269-283 |
| description |
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Introduction</jats:title><jats:p>Radiographer image evaluation methods such as the preliminary image evaluation (PIE), a formal comment describing radiographers’ findings in radiological images, are embedded in the contemporary radiographer role within Australia. However, perceptions surrounding both the capacity for Australian radiographers to adopt PIE and the barriers to its implementation are highly variable and seldom evidence‐based. This paper systematically reviews the literature to examine radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers and the barriers to implementation.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses were used to systematically review articles via Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, ScienceDirect and Informit. Articles were deemed eligible for inclusion if they were English language, peer‐reviewed and explored radiographic image interpretation by radiographers in the context of the Australian healthcare system. Letters to the editor, opinion pieces, reviews and reports were excluded.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>A total of 926 studies were screened for relevance, 19 articles met the inclusion criteria. The 19 articles consisted of 11 cohort studies, seven cross‐sectional surveys and one randomised control trial. Studies exploring radiographers’ image interpretation performance utilised a variety of methodological designs with accuracy, sensitivity and specificity values ranging from 57 to 98%, 45 to 98% and 68 to 98%, respectively. Primary barriers to radiographic image evaluation by radiographers included lack of accessible educational resources and support from both radiologists and radiographers.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>Australian radiographers can undertake PIE; however, educational and clinical support barriers limit implementation. Access to targeted education and a clear definition of radiographers’ image evaluation role may drive a wider acceptance of radiographer image evaluation in Australia.</jats:p></jats:sec> |
| container_issue |
4 |
| container_start_page |
269 |
| container_title |
Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences |
| container_volume |
66 |
| format_de105 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de14 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de15 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de520 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de540 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_dech1 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_ded117 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_degla1 |
E-Article |
| format_del152 |
Buch |
| format_del189 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_dezi4 |
Article |
| format_dezwi2 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_finc |
Article, E-Article |
| format_nrw |
Article, E-Article |
| _version_ |
1792346555657748488 |
| geogr_code |
not assigned |
| last_indexed |
2024-03-01T17:41:14.915Z |
| geogr_code_person |
not assigned |
| openURL |
url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fvufind.svn.sourceforge.net%3Agenerator&rft.title=Radiographic+image+interpretation+by+Australian+radiographers%3A+a+systematic+review&rft.date=2019-12-01&genre=article&issn=2051-3909&volume=66&issue=4&spage=269&epage=283&pages=269-283&jtitle=Journal+of+Medical+Radiation+Sciences&atitle=Radiographic+image+interpretation+by+Australian+radiographers%3A+a+systematic+review&aulast=Neep&aufirst=Michael+J.&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1002%2Fjmrs.356&rft.language%5B0%5D=eng |
| SOLR | |
| _version_ | 1792346555657748488 |
| author | Murphy, Andrew, Ekpo, Ernest, Steffens, Thomas, Neep, Michael J. |
| author_facet | Murphy, Andrew, Ekpo, Ernest, Steffens, Thomas, Neep, Michael J., Murphy, Andrew, Ekpo, Ernest, Steffens, Thomas, Neep, Michael J. |
| author_sort | murphy, andrew |
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 269 |
| container_title | Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences |
| container_volume | 66 |
| description | <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Introduction</jats:title><jats:p>Radiographer image evaluation methods such as the preliminary image evaluation (PIE), a formal comment describing radiographers’ findings in radiological images, are embedded in the contemporary radiographer role within Australia. However, perceptions surrounding both the capacity for Australian radiographers to adopt PIE and the barriers to its implementation are highly variable and seldom evidence‐based. This paper systematically reviews the literature to examine radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers and the barriers to implementation.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses were used to systematically review articles via Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, ScienceDirect and Informit. Articles were deemed eligible for inclusion if they were English language, peer‐reviewed and explored radiographic image interpretation by radiographers in the context of the Australian healthcare system. Letters to the editor, opinion pieces, reviews and reports were excluded.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>A total of 926 studies were screened for relevance, 19 articles met the inclusion criteria. The 19 articles consisted of 11 cohort studies, seven cross‐sectional surveys and one randomised control trial. Studies exploring radiographers’ image interpretation performance utilised a variety of methodological designs with accuracy, sensitivity and specificity values ranging from 57 to 98%, 45 to 98% and 68 to 98%, respectively. Primary barriers to radiographic image evaluation by radiographers included lack of accessible educational resources and support from both radiologists and radiographers.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>Australian radiographers can undertake PIE; however, educational and clinical support barriers limit implementation. Access to targeted education and a clear definition of radiographers’ image evaluation role may drive a wider acceptance of radiographer image evaluation in Australia.</jats:p></jats:sec> |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/jmrs.356 |
| facet_avail | Online, Free |
| finc_class_facet | Medizin, Technik, Physik |
| format | ElectronicArticle |
| format_de105 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de14 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de15 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de520 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de540 | Article, E-Article |
| format_dech1 | Article, E-Article |
| format_ded117 | Article, E-Article |
| format_degla1 | E-Article |
| format_del152 | Buch |
| format_del189 | Article, E-Article |
| format_dezi4 | Article |
| format_dezwi2 | Article, E-Article |
| format_finc | Article, E-Article |
| format_nrw | Article, E-Article |
| geogr_code | not assigned |
| geogr_code_person | not assigned |
| id | ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTAwMi9qbXJzLjM1Ng |
| imprint | Wiley, 2019 |
| imprint_str_mv | Wiley, 2019 |
| institution | DE-D275, DE-Bn3, DE-Brt1, DE-D161, DE-Zwi2, DE-Gla1, DE-Zi4, DE-15, DE-Pl11, DE-Rs1, DE-105, DE-14, DE-Ch1, DE-L229 |
| issn | 2051-3909, 2051-3895 |
| issn_str_mv | 2051-3909, 2051-3895 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-01T17:41:14.915Z |
| match_str | murphy2019radiographicimageinterpretationbyaustralianradiographersasystematicreview |
| mega_collection | Wiley (CrossRef) |
| physical | 269-283 |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publishDateSort | 2019 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | ai |
| recordtype | ai |
| series | Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences |
| source_id | 49 |
| spelling | Murphy, Andrew Ekpo, Ernest Steffens, Thomas Neep, Michael J. 2051-3895 2051-3909 Wiley Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging Radiological and Ultrasound Technology http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.356 <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Introduction</jats:title><jats:p>Radiographer image evaluation methods such as the preliminary image evaluation (PIE), a formal comment describing radiographers’ findings in radiological images, are embedded in the contemporary radiographer role within Australia. However, perceptions surrounding both the capacity for Australian radiographers to adopt PIE and the barriers to its implementation are highly variable and seldom evidence‐based. This paper systematically reviews the literature to examine radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers and the barriers to implementation.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses were used to systematically review articles via Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, ScienceDirect and Informit. Articles were deemed eligible for inclusion if they were English language, peer‐reviewed and explored radiographic image interpretation by radiographers in the context of the Australian healthcare system. Letters to the editor, opinion pieces, reviews and reports were excluded.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>A total of 926 studies were screened for relevance, 19 articles met the inclusion criteria. The 19 articles consisted of 11 cohort studies, seven cross‐sectional surveys and one randomised control trial. Studies exploring radiographers’ image interpretation performance utilised a variety of methodological designs with accuracy, sensitivity and specificity values ranging from 57 to 98%, 45 to 98% and 68 to 98%, respectively. Primary barriers to radiographic image evaluation by radiographers included lack of accessible educational resources and support from both radiologists and radiographers.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>Australian radiographers can undertake PIE; however, educational and clinical support barriers limit implementation. Access to targeted education and a clear definition of radiographers’ image evaluation role may drive a wider acceptance of radiographer image evaluation in Australia.</jats:p></jats:sec> Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences |
| spellingShingle | Murphy, Andrew, Ekpo, Ernest, Steffens, Thomas, Neep, Michael J., Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences, Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging, Radiological and Ultrasound Technology |
| title | Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review |
| title_full | Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review |
| title_fullStr | Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review |
| title_short | Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review |
| title_sort | radiographic image interpretation by australian radiographers: a systematic review |
| title_unstemmed | Radiographic image interpretation by Australian radiographers: a systematic review |
| topic | Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging, Radiological and Ultrasound Technology |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.356 |