Literature DB >> 1738985

Efficacy of digital radiography for the detection of pneumothorax: comparison with conventional chest radiography.

E A Elam1, K Rehm, B J Hillman, K Maloney, L L Fajardo, K McNeill.   

Abstract

As part of our continuing evaluation of the clinical applicability of digital radiography, we compared the abilities of radiologists to detect pneumothoraces on conventional chest radiographs with their performances when using three formats of digitally obtained images. Twenty-three frontal-view chest radiographs with pneumothoraces and 22 other chest radiographs, either normal or showing miscellaneous abnormalities, were interpreted by five experienced radiologists in each of four formats: conventional film-screen chest radiographs, small-format (17.8 x 21.6 cm) computed radiographs, large-format (35.6 x 43.1 cm) computed radiographs, and digital images viewed on an interactive electronic workstation. The receiver-operating-characteristic curve areas for each observer for the four types of images were compared by a z test on a critical ratio, and the mean sensitivity and specificity values were compared by the sign rank test. The mean areas under the receiver-operating-characteristic curves ranged from 0.869 for the digital workstation to 0.915 for film-screen images. The differences observed among formats were not statistically significant. Mean specificities also were not significantly different, ranging from 0.90 for large-format computed radiographs to 0.96 for the digital workstation. Mean sensitivity ranged from 0.65 for the digital workstation to 0.82 for film-screen images. Radiologists interpreting digital workstation images were significantly less sensitive in detecting pneumothoraces than with film-screen and small-format computed images (p = .06). In this study, radiologists detected pneumothoraces equally well on conventional film-screen radiographs and digital images printed on film; however, they detected pneumothoraces less well on electronic viewing consoles. This latter finding reflects an important practical difference in the working behavior of radiologists interacting with a digital workstation.

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1738985     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.158.3.1738985

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  7 in total

1.  Enhancement of chest images by automatic adaptive spatial filtering.

Authors:  M Souto; J Correa; P G Tahoces; D Tucker; K S Malagari; J J Vidal; R G Fraser
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Should 3K zoom function be used for detection of pneumothorax in cesium iodide/amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiographs presented on 1K-matrix soft copies?

Authors:  Karin A Herrmann; H M Bonél; A Stäbler; M Voelk; M Strotzer; C J Zech; M F Reiser
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-08-01       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Comparison of a PACS workstation with laser hard copies for detecting scaphoid fractures in the emergency department.

Authors:  W Khaliq; C J Blakeley; S Maheshwaran; K Hashemi; P Redman
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2008-11-07       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Can x rays be accurately interpreted using a low cost telemedicine system?

Authors:  S O'Reilly; R Spedding; C Dearden; M Loane
Journal:  J Accid Emerg Med       Date:  1998-09

5.  Digital chest radiography: clinical aspects.

Authors:  U Tylén
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Report on a new type of trauma full-body digital X-ray machine.

Authors:  S Beningfield; H Potgieter; A Nicol; S van As; G Bowie; E Hering; E Lätti
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2003-04-09

7.  Diagnostic usefulness of chest computed radiography--film versus cathode-ray tube images.

Authors:  T Ishigaki; S Sakuma; T Endo; M Ikeda
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.056

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.