Identification and prevalence of errors affecting the quality of radiographs submitted to Australian thoroughbred yearling sale repositories.
Abstract: We aimed to identify common mistakes made when radiographing yearling sale horses. Radiographic examinations from repositories at eight yearling sales held in Australia in 2003 were assessed by one of four veterinary radiology specialists. Each radiographic examination consisted of a maximum of 34 radiographs. Each radiograph was assessed for errors associated with movement, exposure, positioning, labeling or marker placement, and processing, and categorized as either ideal, less than ideal or nondiagnostic. In addition, from the first 800 sets catalogued, 167 were selected randomly and read twice by the four radiologists for agreement analysis. A total of 81,297 radiographs were examined for errors affecting quality. Positioning errors were the most common reason for radiographs to be considered nondiagnostic (2432/81,297; 3%), with the flexed lateromedial (LM) metacarpophalangeal joint, LM metatarsophalangeal joint, and the dorsomedial palmarolateral (DMPaLO) carpal views being the most frequently involved. Overexposure (14,357/81,297; 17.7%) was the most common reason for radiographs being categorized as less than ideal with the LM stifle view the most represented. Agreement within and between radiologists for reporting errors in positioning of the flexed LM metacarpophalangeal joint, LM metatarsophalangeal joint, and DMPaLO carpal views varied from slight to almost perfect. The low repeatability within radiologists on some views suggests that before declaring a radiograph nondiagnostic it is worth considering rereading it at another time. Care should be taken in positioning of the flexed LM metacarpophalangeal, LM metatarsophalangeal, and DMPaLO carpus views to maximize radiograph quality.
© 2011 Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound.
Publication Date: 2011-02-22 PubMed ID: 21342306DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2011.01800.xGoogle Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
- Journal Article
Summary
This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.
The researchers investigated common errors that affect the quality of horse radiographs taken for sale purposes. The most frequent issue was a problem with positioning. Overexposure was also a common issue, with specific views more commonly affected by these issues. A lack of consistency among radiologists in identifying errors suggests that a second reading might be beneficial.
Objective of the study
- The research aimed to identify common mistakes made while capturing radiographic images of young racehorses.
- These errors were examined in terms of movement, exposure, positioning, labeling, and processing of the radiograph.
Method of Study
- The study involved analysis of radiographs from repositories of eight yearling sales held in Australia in 2003 by four veterinary radiology specialists.
- There were a maximum of 34 radiographs in each radiographic examination.
- Each radiograph was evaluated for any possible errors and categorized as ideal, less than ideal, or non-diagnostic.
- A subset of radiographs was selected and read twice by the same radiologists to also analyze the level of agreement among them.
Findings
- A total of 81,297 radiographs were scrutinized for errors affecting quality.
- Positioning errors were the most commonly identified type causing a radiograph to be non-diagnostic, accounting for about 3% of the reviewed radiographs, with certain joint views being most frequently involved.
- Around 17.7% of radiographs were categorized as less than ideal due to overexposure, with certain views being more represented.
- The agreement within and among radiologists varied from slight to almost perfect, suggesting a certain level of subjectivity and disagreement in identifying the errors.
- The study concluded that before declaring a radiograph non-diagnostic, it is worth considering reading it again.
Recommendations
- The researchers recommend extra care in positioning specific joint views to optimize the quality of radiographs.
- Re-reading of radiograph in doubt before classifying it as undiagnostic was also advised.
Cite This Article
APA
Jackson MA, Vizard AL, Anderson GA, Mattoon JS, Lavelle RB, Smithenson BT, Lester NV, Clarke AF, Whitton RC.
(2011).
Identification and prevalence of errors affecting the quality of radiographs submitted to Australian thoroughbred yearling sale repositories.
Vet Radiol Ultrasound, 52(3), 262-269.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8261.2011.01800.x Publication
Researcher Affiliations
- Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Melbourne, 250 Princes Highway, Werribee, Vic. 3030, Australia. melissajackson@nmit.vic.edu.au
MeSH Terms
- Animals
- Artifacts
- Carpus, Animal / diagnostic imaging
- Diagnostic Errors / veterinary
- Horses
- Metacarpophalangeal Joint / diagnostic imaging
- Metatarsophalangeal Joint / diagnostic imaging
- Radiography / veterinary
- Stifle / diagnostic imaging
- Tarsus, Animal / diagnostic imaging
Citations
This article has been cited 1 times.- Grapperon Mathis M, Ley C, Berger M, Hansson K. Evaluation of a positioning method for equine lateral stifle scintigrams.. Acta Vet Scand 2012 Jun 15;54(1):38.
Use Nutrition Calculator
Check if your horse's diet meets their nutrition requirements with our easy-to-use tool Check your horse's diet with our easy-to-use tool
Talk to a Nutritionist
Discuss your horse's feeding plan with our experts over a free phone consultation Discuss your horse's diet over a phone consultation
Submit Diet Evaluation
Get a customized feeding plan for your horse formulated by our equine nutritionists Get a custom feeding plan formulated by our nutritionists
