Advertisement

Journal of Tongji Medical University

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 120–123 | Cite as

A comparison of radiographic interpretation of silica exposed workers using the 1963 and the 1986 Chinese roentgenodiagnostic criteria of pneumoconioses

  • Chen Rong-an
  • Thomas K. Hodous
  • Liang Zuo-xue
  • Martin Petersen
  • Den Yan-chun
  • Joseph K. Mclaughlin
  • Chen Jing-qiong
  • William J. Blor
Article

Summary

As part of a larger study relating to silica exposure, silicosis, and lung cancer mortality in Chinese mine and factory workers, 1936 old posterior-anterior chest X-rays were re-interpreted according to the 1986 Chinese Roentgenodiagnostic Criteria of pneumoconioses. Each film was independently read by three individuals from a panel of eleven radiologists, and this reading was compared to the original one. Subsequent to the independent readings, a groups of three readers interpreted the films together, called the consensus readings. Comparisons were made by Chinese stage of pneumoconiosis. For the entire cohort, there was a crude agreement of 57.4% between the old and the new interpretations. Agreement within one step of full agreement was 92.5%. The interpretations done by median reading and by consensus were very similar. In general, there was a tendency for the old readings to be slightly higher compared to the new interpretations. This tendency was most marked in the tin mines, followed in decreasing order by the iron/copper mines, the potteries, and the tungsten mines. The agreement between the old and new interpretations is felt to be satisfactory.

Key words

pneumoconioees roentgenodiagnostic criteria 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Huang JQ, Hong YZ. A comparsion of Chinese diagnostic standards of silicotic radiographs and the ILO International classification of radiographs of pneumoconioses. Ann Occu Hyg 1984;28: 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    The 1986 Chinese roentgenodiagnostic criteria for the pneumoconioses, Chinese academy of preventive medicine, Beijing, 1986Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hodous TK, et al. Wuhan-American comparison, A comparison of pneumoconiosis interpretation between Chinese and American readers and classifications. J Tongji Med Univ 1991; 11(4): 225PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen J, A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Phychol Meas 1960; 20:37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ducatman AM, et al. B-readers and asbestos medical surveillance. J Occup Med 1988; 30:644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parker DL, et al. Public health implications of the variability in the interpretation of “B” readings for pleural changes. J Occup Med 1989;31:775PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reger RB. et al. The effect of film quality and other factors on the roentgenographic categorization of coal workers pneumoconiosis. Am J Roent Rad Ther Nuc Med 1972;115:462Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pearson NG, et al. Effect of quality of chest radiographs on categorization of Coal workers pneumoconiosis. Br J Ind Med 1965; 22:81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fletcher CM, Oldham PD. Problem of consistent radiological diagnoses in coal miners pneumoconiosis. Br J Ind Med 1949; 6:168PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chen Rong-an
    • 1
  • Thomas K. Hodous
    • 1
    • 2
  • Liang Zuo-xue
    • 1
    • 3
  • Martin Petersen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Den Yan-chun
    • 1
  • Joseph K. Mclaughlin
    • 1
  • Chen Jing-qiong
    • 1
  • William J. Blor
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Labour Health and Occupational DiseasesTongji Medical UniversityWuhan
  2. 2.Division of Respiratory Disease StudiesNIOSHMorgantownUSA
  3. 3.The Health Department of Jiangxi provinceNanchang

Personalised recommendations