No / To determine the accuracy of radiographer plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS Studies were identified from electronic sources and by hand searching journals, personal communication and checking reference lists. Eligible studies assessed radiographers' plain radiograph reporting in clinical practice compared with a reference standard, and provided accuracy data to construct 2×2 contingency tables. Data were extracted on study eligibility and characteristics, quality and accuracy. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to pool the accuracy data. RESULTS Radiographers compared with a reference standard, report plain radiographs in clinical practice at 92.6% (95% CI: 92.0¿93.2) and 97.7% (95% CI: 97.5¿97.9) sensitivity and specificity, respectively. Studies that compared selectively trained radiographers and radiologists of varying seniority against a reference standard showed no evidence of a difference between radiographer and radiologist reporting accuracy of accident and emergency plain radiographs. Selectively trained radiographers were also found to report such radiographs as accurately as those not solely from accident and emergency, although some variation in reporting accuracy was found for different body areas. Training radiographers improved their accuracy when reporting normal radiographs. CONCLUSION This study systematically synthesizes the literature to provide an evidence-base showing that radiographers can accurately report plain radiographs in clinical practice.