Asian Intensive Reader of Pneumoconiosis program: examination for certification during 2008-2020.

This study examined physicians' participation and performance in the examinations administered by the Asian Intensive Reader of Pneumoconiosis (AIR Pneumo) program from 2008 to 2020 and compared radiograph readings of physicians who passed with those who failed the examinations. Demography of the participants, participation trends, pass/fail rates, and proficiency scores were summarized; differences in reading the radiographs for pneumoconiosis of physicians who passed the examinations and those who failed were evaluated. By December 2020, 555 physicians from 20 countries had taken certification examinations; the number of participants increased in recent years. Reported background specialty training and work experience varied widely. Passing rate and mean proficiency score for participants who passed were 83.4% and 77.6 ± 9.4 in certification, and 76.8% and 88.1 ± 4.5 in recertification examinations. Compared with physicians who passed the examinations, physicians who failed tended to classify test radiographs as positive for pneumoconiosis and read a higher profusion; they likely missed large opacities and pleural plaques and had a lower accuracy in recognizing the shape of small opacities. Findings suggest that physicians who failed the examination tend to over-diagnose radiographs as positive for pneumoconiosis with higher profusion and have difficulty in correctly identifying small opacity shape.

Inter-observer agreement and accuracy in classifying radiographs for pneumoconiosis among Asian physicians taking AIR Pneumo certification examination.

This study examined inter-observer agreement and diagnostic accuracy in classifying radiographs for pneumoconiosis among Asian physicians taking the AIR Pneumo examination. We compared agreement and diagnostic accuracy for parenchymal and pleural lesions across residing countries, specialty training, and work experience using data on 93 physicians. Physicians demonstrated fair to good agreement with kappa values 0.30 (95% CI: 0.20-0.40), 0.29 (95% CI: 0.23-0.36), 0.59 (95% CI: 0.52-0.67), and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.55-0.74) in classifying pleural plaques, small opacity shapes, small opacity profusion, and large opacities, respectively. Kappa values among Asian countries ranging from 0.25 to 0.55 (pleural plaques), 0.47 to 0.73 (small opacity profusion), and 0.55 to 0.69 (large opacity size). The median Youden's J index (interquartile range) for classifying pleural plaque, small opacity, and large opacity was 61.1 (25.5), 76.8 (29.3), and 88.9 (23.3), respectively. Radiologists and recent graduates showed superior performance than other groups regarding agreement and accuracy in classifying all types of lesions. In conclusion, Asian physicians taking the AIR Pneumo examination were better at classifying parenchymal lesions than pleural plaques using the ILO classification. The degree of agreement and accuracy was different among countries and was associated with background specialty training.

Diagnosing pneumonia in rural Thailand: Digital cameras versus film digitizers for chest radiograph teleradiology.

BACKGROUND: Accurate surveillance for pneumonia requires standardized classification of chest radiographs. Digital imaging permits rapid electronic transfer of data to radiologists, and recent improvements in digital camera technology present high quality, yet cheaper, options. METHODS: We evaluated the comparative utility of digital camera versus film digitizer in capturing chest radiographs in a pneumonia surveillance system in rural Thailand using a panel of radiologists; the gold standard was the hard-copy radiograph. We calculated sensitivity and specificity and conducted a receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: Of the 192 radiographs from patients with clinical pneumonia, 166 (86%) were classified as pneumonia on the hard copies. Sensitivity and specificity for identifying pneumonia were 89% and 73% for the camera and 90% and 65% for the digitizer. In the ROC analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the area under the curve (camera, 0.86; film digitizer, 0.91, p = 0.29). The digital camera set cost 965 dollars compared to 3000 dollars for the film digitizer. CONCLUSION: Detection of pneumonia was not measurably compromised by using digital cameras compared with film digitizers. The 3-fold lower cost of the digital camera makes this technology an affordable and widely accessible alternative for surveillance systems, vaccine trials, and perhaps clinical use.