Analysis of the Rejection Rate of Chest Radiographs Obtained during the Coal Mine “Black Lung” Program

Ed, Trout; Jacobson, George; Rt, Moore; Ep, Shoub

doi:10.1148/109.1.25

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…128 These readers were subsequently designated as “first” or “A” readers and their classifications required a second, independent classification by a “final” or “B” reader,” one of a small group of radiologists, selected from among three major medical centers, with extensive experience classifying pneumoconiosis. 129,130…”

Section: Respiratory Health Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

NIOSH’s Respiratory Health Division: 50 years of science and service

Cummings

Johns

Mazurek

et al. 2018

Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The year 2017 marked the 50th anniversary of NIOSH’s Respiratory Health Division (RHD). RHD began in 1967 as the Appalachian Laboratory for Occupational Respiratory Diseases (ALFORD), with a focus on coal workers’ pneumoconiosis. ALFORD became part of NIOSH in 1971 and added activities to address work-related respiratory disease more generally. Health hazard evaluations played an important role in understanding novel respiratory hazards such as nylon flock, diacetyl, and indium-tin oxide. Epidemiologic and laboratory studies addressed many respiratory hazards, including coal mine dust, silica, asbestos, cotton dust, beryllium, diesel exhaust, and dampness and mold. Surveillance activities tracked the burden of diseases and enhanced the quality of spirometry and chest radiography used to screen workers. RHD’s efforts to improve scientific understanding, inform strategies for prevention, and disseminate knowledge remain important now and for the future.

show abstract

Section: Respiratory Health Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

NIOSH’s Respiratory Health Division: 50 years of science and service

Cummings

Johns

Mazurek

et al. 2018

Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is because the employees had shown concern about how many x-rays they were given, (1993present). The complex-wide x-ray guidance Technical Basis Document (TBD) indicate a 3 % re-take rate based upon Trout et al (1973) in their analysis of the rejection rate of chest radiographs obtained during the Coal Mine "Black Lung" program reported an average rejection rate of 3% among 67,000 radiographs. International Commission of Radiation Protection (ICRP) Publication-34 (ICRP-34) indicates a minimal value of 10 -12 % re-takes (ICRP 34, p 37).…”

Section: Examination Frequenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section 3 Acronyms and Abbreviations

2014

Fulton Special Education Digest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Trout et al (1) reported in Radiology that 64 of 144 facilities had 10 percent or more of their radiographs rejected and that this reject rate would have been higher had the readers not been urged to accept any radiograph that might be readable.…”

Section: The Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

<title>Quality Assurance: A Fundamental Whose Time Has Come</title>

Vucich¹

1976

SPIE Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionWe live in an era of consumerism, in which people are demanding that the products and services they receive be of uniform high quality. This attitude increasingly prevails in the area of health care services, where the patient-consumer expects to receive the highest quality medical care which a facility can provide.In diagnostic radiology, the issue of quality involves three separate assumptions: first, that a necessary and appropriate examination was ordered for the patient; secondly, that the image on the radiograph or fluoroscopic viewing system is of such quality that an accurate diagnosis can be made; and thirdly, that the image is interpreted correctly by a qualified individual.We will focus on the second of these three factors, addressing the problem of what is being done and what can be done in the future to assure that facilities can produce radiographs of consistently high quality.The importance of this facet of quality assurance is twofold: good quality increases the probability of accurate diagnoses and at the same time tends to reduce the patient's exposure to radiation. The subject of our discussion, then, will be those actions which can be taken to provide adequate confidence that a facility will consistently produce optimum diagnostic radiographs, at minimum cost and with minimum patient exposure. The ProblemThe need for quality assurance (QA) in diagnostic radiology becomes evident when the published data relating to the performance of diagnostic x -ray equipment are examined.While no single piece of data is conclusive in itself, the message that emerges from the overall picture is convincing. Further indication of the need for QA is demonstrated by the fact that several professional organizations and some x -rayrelated companies are moving to alleviate the problem. The Bureau of Radiological Health, FDA also recognizes the need and plans to be actively involved in identifying major items of concern and then participating in the development of programs to satisfy both the educational and performance aspects of the problem.

show abstract

Analysis of the Rejection Rate of Chest Radiographs Obtained during the Coal Mine “Black Lung” Program

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

NIOSH’s Respiratory Health Division: 50 years of science and service

NIOSH’s Respiratory Health Division: 50 years of science and service

Section 3 Acronyms and Abbreviations

<title>Quality Assurance: A Fundamental Whose Time Has Come</title>

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About