RESUMEN
A large database of digital chest radiographs was developed over a 14-month period. Ten radiographic technologists and five radiologists independently evaluated a stratified subset of images from the database for quality deficiencies and decided whether each image should be rejected. The evaluation results showed that the radiographic technologists and radiologists agreed only moderately in their assessments. When compared against each other, radiologist and technologist reader groups were found to have even less agreement than the inter-reader agreement within each group. Radiologists were found to be more accepting of limited-quality studies than technologists. Evidence from the study suggests that the technologists weighted their reject decisions more heavily on objective technical attributes, while the radiologists weighted their decisions more heavily on diagnostic interpretability relative to the image indication. A suite of reject-detection algorithms was independently run on the images in the database. The algorithms detected 4 % of postero-anterior chest exams that were accepted by the technologist who originally captured the image but which would have been rejected by the technologist peer group. When algorithm results were made available to the technologists during the study, there was no improvement in inter-reader agreement in deciding whether to reject an image. The algorithm results do, however, provide new quality information that could be captured within a site-wide, reject-tracking database and leveraged as part of a site-wide QA program.