↓ Skip to main content

Quality assessment of X-rays interpreted via teleradiology for Médecins Sans Frontières

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Quality assessment of X-rays interpreted via teleradiology for Médecins Sans Frontières
Published in
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, February 2014
DOI 10.1177/1357633x14524153
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saskia Spijker, Savvas Andronikou, Cara Kosack, Richard Wootton, Maryline Bonnet, Nathalie Lemmens

Abstract

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is a humanitarian organisation which provides emergency medical aid in challenging settings; field staff often diagnose and treat patients using limited resources and without the expertise of specialists. Teleradiology is available for MSF sites which use digital computed radiography (CR) imaging or conventional film and chemistry. We conducted a retrospective study of the quality of X-rays utilised by MSF for teleradiology diagnosis over a one-year period. All plain X-ray examinations referred for interpretation using two MSF teleradiology platforms in 2012 were assessed against 15 image criteria and further evaluated as being either diagnostic or non-diagnostic. The sites studied sent an average of 115 images (range 10-452). Images were a mixture of chest, skeletal and abdominal radiographs. The majority of the images were CR (n = 597, 74%). Three sites were MSF/Epicentre installed and operated (Epicentre is a research facility affiliated with MSF); five sites were operated by the ministry of health, imaging patients referred by MSF. The sites performing poorest for quality were all facilities which used film and chemistry (53% non-diagnostic images). The sites performing better for quality were facilities which used CR digital imaging (12% non-diagnostic images), two of which had also undergone radiographer training. Our study suggests that transitioning to CR digital imaging has the potential to improve image quality compared to film and chemistry. Radiography training should be made a priority for all sites with X-ray services. The continued utilisation of X-ray services by MSF where images have proven to be consistently poor should be re-considered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 42 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 19%
Other 5 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 63%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 10 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,402,843
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare
#340
of 1,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,373
of 313,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare
#5
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,031 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.