Purpose To assess the level of concordance between chest radiographic classifications of A and B Readers in a national surveillance program offered to U.S. coal miners over an approximate 36-year period. Materials and Methods The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Coal Workers’ Health Surveillance Program (CWHSP) is a surveillance program with nonresearch designation and is exempt from Human Subjects Review Board approval (11-DRDS-NR03). Thirty-six years of data (1979–2015) from the CWHSP were analyzed, which included all conventional screen-film radiographs with a classification by at least one A Reader and one B Reader. Agreement was assessed by using κ statistics; prevalence ratios were used to describe differences between A and B Reader determinations of image technical quality, small opacity profusion, and presence of large opacities and pleural abnormalities. Results The analysis included 79 185 matched A and B Reader chest radiograph classifications. A majority of both A and B Readers were radiologists (74.2% [213 of 287] vs 64.7% [22 of 34]; P = .04). A and B Readers had minimal agreement on technical image quality (κ = 0.0796; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07, 0.08) and the distribution of small opacity profusion (subcategory κ, 0.2352; 95% CI: 0.22, 0.25). A Readers classified more images as “good” quality (prevalence ratio, 1.38; 95% CI: 1.35, 1.41) and identified more pneumoconiosis (prevalence ratio, 1.22; 95% CI: 1.20, 1.23). Conclusion A Readers classified substantially more radiographs with evidence of pneumoconiosis and classified higher small opacity profusion compared with B Readers. These observations reinforce the importance of multiple classifications by readers who have demonstrated ongoing competence in the International Labour Office classification system to ensure accurate radiographic classifications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Halldin et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: