RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors performed this study to evaluate whether digitally photographed, computer-annotated MR images produced by clinical radiologists and printed with an inexpensive photo printer are suitable for publication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Laser prints of 20 magnetic resonance images of the brain were photographed with a 3-megapixel digital camera and annotated with arrows, arrowheads, and asterisks by using graphics software that incorporates vector support. Then, 5 x 7-inch glossy prints with white borders were made by using an inexpensive photo printer. These prints were compared with those produced of the same 20 images by members of the medical center's graphics department with professional scanning and printing equipment and annotated with conventional rub-on symbols. Eight radiologists evaluated image and annotation quality and overall suitability for publication. RESULTS: In all three categories, the images produced by radiologists outscored those produced by the graphics department. CONCLUSION: Digitally photographed, software-annotated MR images printed with an inexpensive photo printer are suitable for publication.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors performed this study to evaluate whether digitally photographed, computer-annotated MR images produced by clinical radiologists and printed with an inexpensive photo printer are suitable for publication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Laser prints of 20 magnetic resonance images of the brain were photographed with a 3-megapixel digital camera and annotated with arrows, arrowheads, and asterisks by using graphics software that incorporates vector support. Then, 5 x 7-inch glossy prints with white borders were made by using an inexpensive photo printer. These prints were compared with those produced of the same 20 images by members of the medical center's graphics department with professional scanning and printing equipment and annotated with conventional rub-on symbols. Eight radiologists evaluated image and annotation quality and overall suitability for publication. RESULTS: In all three categories, the images produced by radiologists outscored those produced by the graphics department. CONCLUSION: Digitally photographed, software-annotated MR images printed with an inexpensive photo printer are suitable for publication.
Authors: Patricia A Goede; Jason R Lauman; Christopher Cochella; Gregory L Katzman; David A Morton; Kurt H Albertine Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2003-10-05 Impact factor: 4.497