. 2022 Nov 8;78(9):890–894. doi: 10.1136/thorax-2022-219210

Table 3.

Results of thoracic radiologists’ reviews of radiographers’ and radiologists, reports, in 1361 cases where these differed

Attribute of report	Review finding	Radiographer report (%)	Radiologist report (%)	Difference (CI)	Significance
Observation	Agree	1133 (83.2)	1145 (84.1)	−0.9% (−3.8 to 2.0)	p=0.5
Observation	Disagree	228 (16.8)	216 (15.9)	−0.9% (−3.8 to 2.0)	p=0.5
Interpretation	Agree	1119 (82.2)	1138 (83.6)	−1.4% (−4.3 to 1.5)	p=0.3
Interpretation	Disagree	242 (17.8)	223 (16.4)	−1.4% (−4.3 to 1.5)	p=0.3
Further recommendations	Agree	1023 (75.2)	986 (72.4)	2.8% (−0.8 to 6.3)	p=0.1
Further recommendations	Disagree	338 (24.8)	375 (27.6)	2.8% (−0.8 to 6.3)	p=0.1
Usefulness	Agree	1250 (91.8)	1196 (87.9)	3.9% (1.6 to 6.3)	p<0.001
Usefulness	Disagree	111 (8.2)	165 (12.1)	3.9% (1.6 to 6.3)	p<0.001
Accuracy	Agree	839 (61.6)	831 (61.1)	0.6% (−3.6 to 4.8)	p=0.8
Accuracy	Disagree	522 (38.4)	530 (38.9)	0.6% (−3.6 to 4.8)	p=0.8

A positive difference in agreement rates in the table implies that the thoracic radiologist agreed more often with the radiographer’s report and a negative value indicates that the thoracic radiologist agreed more often with the radiologist’s report.