Simple jQuery Dropdowns
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Assessment of physicians’ proficiency in reading chest radiographs for pneumoconiosis, based on a 60-film examination set with two factors constituting eight indices
Authors: Taro Tamura
Yukinori Kusaka
Narufumi Suganuma
Kazuhiro Suzuki
Ponglada Subhannachart
Somkiat Siriruttanapruk
Narongpon Dumavibhat
Xing Zhang
Prahalad K. Sishodiya
Tran Anh Thanh
Kurt G. Hering
John E. Parker
Eduardo Algranti
Francisco Santos-O’connor
Hisao Shida
Masanori Akira
Zhejiang Academy of Medical Sciences
Juntendo University
International Labour Organization
West Virginia University
Thailand Ministry of Public Health
Kochi University
Mahidol University
University of Fukui
Ministry of Occupational Health
Central Chest Institute of Thailand
National Institute of Miners' Health
Divisao de Medicina
Ministry of the Environment
Miners’ Hospital
National Hospital Organization Kinki-Chuo Chest Medical Center
Keywords: Environmental Science;Medicine
Issue Date: 1-Jan-2018
Citation: Industrial Health. Vol.56, No.5 (2018), 382-393
Abstract: © 2018 National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Two hundred and thirty-three individuals read chest x-ray images (CXR) in the Asian Intensive Reader of Pneumoconiosis (AIR Pneumo) workshop. Their proficiency in reading CXR for pneumoconiosis was calculated using eight indices (X1–X8), as follows: sensitivity (X1) and specificity (X2) for pneumoconiosis; sensitivity (X3) and specificity (X4) for large opacities; sensitivity (X5) and specificity (X6) for pleural plaques; profusion increment consistency (X7); and consistency for shape differentiation (X8). For these eight indices, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Scheffe’s multiple comparison were conducted on six groups, based on the participants’ specialty: radiology, respiratory medicine, industrial medicine, public health, general internal medicine, and miscellaneous physicians. Our analysis revealed that radiologists had a significant difference in the mean scores of X3, X5, and X8, compared with those of all groups, excluding radiologists. In the factor analysis, X1, X3, X5, X7, and X8 constituted Factor 1, and X2, X4, and X6 constituted Factor 2. With regard to the factor scores of the six participant groups, the mean scores of Factor 1 of the radiologists were significantly higher than those of all groups, excluding radiologists. The two factors and the eight indices may be used to appropriately assess specialists’ proficiency in reading CXR.
ISSN: 00198366
Appears in Collections:Scopus 2018

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.