Talk:Chest radiograph

Medicine: Radiology / Pulmonology Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Radiology task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force.

Occupational Safety and Health

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Chest radiograph.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Pneumonic Mneumonic

Is this legit? I've never heard it before -- is it commonplace? Should it be in the article -- Samir धर्म 06:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of the mnemonic, unless there's a citation for its use--even if it's in use, it seems pretty unnecessary to mention. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mnemonic is from the Toronto Notes[1] (2005 Ed.). Mnemonics are common in the medical literature. Two examples: Pinkofsky HB. Mnemonics for DSM-IV personality disorders. Psychiatr Serv. 1997 Sep;48(9):1197-8. PMID 9285984. (see article on antisocial personality disorder) / International Myeloma Working Group. Criteria for the classification of monoclonal gammopathies, multiple myeloma and related disorders: a report of the International Myeloma Working Group. Br J Haematol 2003;121:749-57. PMID 12780789. (see article on multiple myeloma) I see no reason to delete. Nephron T|C 05:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a better mneumonic: (from Talley and O'Connor): A Airway (midline, no obvious deformities, no paratracheal masses), B Bones and soft tissues (no fractures, subcutaneous emphysema), C Cardiac (size, silhouette, retrocardiac density), D Diaphragms (right above left by 1-3cm, costophrenic angles sharp, diaphragmatic contrast with lung sharp). E Equal volume (count ribs, look for mediastinal shift), F Fine Detail (pleura, pulmonary vessels, pulmonary parenchyma), G Gastric bubble, H Hilum and Hardware (left him normally above right by up to 3cm). This is a tried and true mneumonic that is pretty easy to remember and I use it on the wards. Logical paradox 12:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another mnemonic

Airway (Trachea midline?) Breathing (Lung volume/rib spaces, fissures, effusions, pneumothorax) Circulation (Heart size, great vessels, cardiac borders, hilar regions etc) Diaphragm (Elevated? Free gas? Angles?) Everything else (Subcutaneous emphysema, Bones) **HH** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.36.43 (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dose

What's the dose estimation from an x-ray? this should be in the article. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably related: Is there any general guideline about using it routinely for children before they enter a school? In Thailand there is at least one (international) school that requires it for children aged 12 and above. They allow children under 12 years to have a Tine test instead. Stevemiller (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that once you "convert" to a positive PPD, for whatever reason, you need to screen using chest X-rays from there on. I don't have the official screening guidelines in front of me, but I'll dig them up. MastCell ^Talk 16:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Description of Views Needed

In the additional views section, views are defined by their usefulness, but no explanation of how the view is taken is provided (e.g. pt standing, anterior to posterior, etc.) Decubitus, for instance, needs further description as to how it is taken. Jopparoad 02:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normal Chest X Ray

A section on what is expected on a normal chest x ray would be useful e.g. what each part of the cardiac silhouette represents, how many rib spaces should be seen on a good inspiration film, where should the horizontal fissure be etc **HH** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.36.43 (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. That sort of information is well suited for a textbook on diagnostic radiology, but is not appropriate for an encyclopedia with a generally non-medical audience. --David Iberri (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Risk

Changed "Limitations: While chest radiographs are a cheap and *safe* method of investigating diseases of the chest..." to "... relatively safe ...". They are not absolutely safe.

Please compare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray#Risks_of_medical_diagnostic_X-rays —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.67.28.200 (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My review of this article

I am a patient advocate with an interest in the work of the American College of Radiology. The College has published a list of five things to question as part of the Choosing Wisely project.

I am reviewing this article according to the instructions at WP:HealthReview.

I suggest changing the article in the following ways:

I think that this article could be improved by adding this statement:

Evidence suggests that in most cases, routine admission or preoperative chest x-rays are not recommended for ambulatory patients. Changes in management based on chest x-rays in these circumstances are extremely rare, occurring in only 2 percent of such images.

This reference supports the above statement:

Munro J, Booth A, Nicholl J. Routine preoperative testing: a systematic review of the evidence. Health Technol Assess 1997; 1(12):i-iv; 1-62

Thank you for your attention.

(I am not a regular Wikipedia editor so if you post on my Wikipedia user page I may not get your message.)

(If you need help implementing any of these changes please go to WP:HealthReview and request support there, as I cannot help you.)

Thank you, Taramont (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chest radiograph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]