Author/Authors :
Binay, Songul Department of Chest Diseases - Yildirim Beyazit University - Medical School, Ankara, Turkey , Arbak, Peri Department of Chest Diseases - Duzce University, Medical School, Duzce, Turkey , Safak, Alp Alper Department of Radiology - Duzce University - Medical School, Duzce, Turkey , Balbay, Ege Gulec Department of Chest Diseases - Duzce University - Medical School, Duzce, Turkey , Bilgin, Cahit Department of Chest Diseases - Sakarya University - Medical School, Sakarya, Turkey , Naciye Karatas6 Department of Chest Diseases - Antakya Goverment Hospital, Hatay, Turkey
Abstract :
Objective: To determine whether the workers’ periodic chest x-ray screening techniques in accordance
with the quality standards is the responsibility of physicians. Evaluation of differences of interpretations by
physicians in different levels of education and the importance of standardization of interpretation.
Methods: Previously taken chest radiographs of 400 workers who are working in a factory producing
the glass run channels were evaluated according to technical and quality standards by three observers
(pulmonologist, radiologist, pulmonologist assistant). There was a perfect concordance between radiologist
and pulmonologist for the underpenetrated films. Whereas there was perfect concordance between
pulmonologist and pulmonologist assistant for over penetrated films.
Results: Pulmonologist (52%) has interpreted the dose of the films as regular more than other observers
(radiologist; 44.3%, pulmonologist assistant; 30.4%). The frequency of interpretation of the films as taken
in inspiratory phase by the pulmonologist (81.7%) was less than other observers (radiologist; 92.1%,
pulmonologist assistant; 92.6%). The rate of the pulmonologist (53.5%) was higher than the other observers
(radiologist; 44.6%, pulmonologist assistant; 41.8%) for the assessment of the positioning of the patients as
symmetrical. Pulmonologist assistant (15.3%) was the one who most commonly reported the parenchymal
findings (radiologist; 2.2%, pulmonologist; 12.9%).
Conclusion: It is necessary to reorganize the technical standards and exposure procedures for improving the
quality of the chest radiographs. The reappraisal of all interpreters and continuous training of technicians
is required.
Keywords :
Differences among observers , Periodic screening , Occupational health , Pneumoconiosis , Quality of radiography