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 ¿lm reading performance studies. These
biases are subdivided into three categories. The ¿rst category refers to the selection of subjects,
including both ¿lms 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 ¿lms 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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:BRADFORD/oai:bradscholars.brad.ac.uk:10454/6382 |
| Date | January 2001 |
| Creators | Brealey, S., Scally, Andy J. |
| Source Sets | Bradford Scholars |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Article, Published version |
Page generated in 0.0021 seconds