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.

No / Studies of diagnostic accuracy often report paired tests for sensitivity and specificity that can be pooled separately to produce summary estimates in a meta-analysis. This was done recently for a systematic review of radiographers' reporting accuracy of plain radiographs. The problem with pooling sensitivities and specificities separately is that it does not acknowledge any possible (negative) correlation between these two measures. A possible cause of this negative correlation is that different thresholds are used in studies to define abnormal and normal radiographs because of implicit variations in thresholds that occur when radiographers' report plain radiographs. A method that allows for the correlation that can exist between pairs of sensitivity and specificity within a study using a random effects approach is the bivariate model. When estimates of accuracy as a fixed-effects model were pooled separately, radiographers' reported plain radiographs in clinical practice at 93% (95% confidence interval (CI) 92-93%) sensitivity and 98% (95% CI 98-98%) specificity. The bivariate model produced the same summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity but with wider confidence intervals (93% (95% CI 91-95%) and 98% (95% CI 96-98%), respectively) that take into account the heterogeneity beyond chance between studies. This method also allowed us to calculate a 95% confidence ellipse around the mean values of sensitivity and specificity and a 95% prediction ellipse for individual values of sensitivity and specificity. The bivariate model is an improvement on pooling sensitivity and specificity separately when there is a threshold effect, and it is the preferred method of choice.