Literature DB >> 21457011

Comparison between differently priced devices for digital capture of X-ray films using computed tomography as a gold standard: a multireader-multicase receiver operating characteristic curve study.

Antonio J Salazar1, Juan Camilo Camacho, Diego Andrés Aguirre.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Film digitizers are a specialized technology that is available for scanning X-ray radiographs; however, their cost makes them unaffordable for developing countries. Thus, less expensive alternatives are used. The purpose of this study was to compare three devices for digital capture of X-ray films: a film digitizer (US $15,000), a flatbed scanner (US $1800), and a 10-megapixel digital camera (US $450), in terms of diagnostic accuracy, defined as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves and computed tomography as the gold standard.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample included 136 chest X-ray cases with computed tomography confirmation of the presence or absence of pneumothorax, interstitial opacities, or nodules. The readers were six radiologists who made observations of eight variables for each digital capture of the X-ray films: three main variables to determine the accuracy in the detection of the above-mentioned pathologies, four secondary variables to categorize other pathological classifications, and one variable regarding digital image quality.
RESULTS: The receiver operating characteristic curves for each device and pathology were very similar. For the main variables, there was no significant statistical difference in diagnostic accuracy between the devices. For the secondary variables, >84% of cases were correctly classified, even those that were classified with the lowest image quality. High accuracy was determined for the three main variables (0.75 to 0.96), indicating good performance for all tested devices, despite their very different prices.
CONCLUSIONS: Choosing a device for a teleradiology service should involve additional factors, such as capture time, maintenance concerns, and training requirements.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21457011      PMCID: PMC3099052          DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2010.0189

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Telemed J E Health        ISSN: 1530-5627            Impact factor:   3.536


  31 in total

1.  Film-screen versus digitized mammography: assessment of clinical equivalence.

Authors:  K A Powell; N A Obuchowski; W A Chilcote; M M Barry; S N Ganobcik; G Cardenosa
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  A contaminated binormal model for ROC data: Part II. A formal model.

Authors:  D D Dorfman; K S Berbaum
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Interpretation of Emergency Department radiographs: a comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty, and film with digital display.

Authors:  J Eng; W K Mysko; G E Weller; R Renard; J N Gitlin; D A Bluemke; D Magid; G D Kelen; W W Scott
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Sample size tables for receiver operating characteristic studies.

Authors:  N A Obuchowski
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 5.  The evaluation of telemedicine and health services research.

Authors:  Jim Grigsby; Angela G Brega; Patricia A Devore
Journal:  Telemed J E Health       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.536

6.  Accuracy of bedside chest hard-copy screen-film versus hard- and soft-copy computed radiographs in a medical intensive care unit: receiver operating characteristic analysis.

Authors:  H L Kundel; W Gefter; J Aronchick; W Miller; H Hatabu; C H Whitfill; W Miller
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 7.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems.

Authors:  J A Swets
Journal:  Science       Date:  1988-06-03       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Diagnostic accuracy of chest X-rays acquired using a digital camera for low-cost teleradiology.

Authors:  Agnieszka Szot; Francine L Jacobson; Samson Munn; Darius Jazayeri; Edward Nardell; David Harrison; Ralph Drosten; Lucila Ohno-Machado; Laura M Smeaton; Hamish S F Fraser
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 4.046

10.  Diagnosing pneumonia in rural Thailand: Digital cameras versus film digitizers for chest radiograph teleradiology.

Authors:  Massoud Javadi; Ponglada Subhannachart; Sunisa Levine; Chomphunut Vijitsanguan; Sutarat Tungsagunwattana; Scott F Dowell; Sonja J Olsen
Journal:  Int J Infect Dis       Date:  2005-10-21       Impact factor: 3.623

View more
  5 in total

1.  Evaluation of three pneumothorax size quantification methods on digitized chest X-ray films using medical-grade grayscale and consumer-grade color displays.

Authors:  Antonio J Salazar; Diego A Aguirre; Juliana Ocampo; Juan C Camacho; Xavier A Díaz
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Evaluation of low-cost telemammography screening configurations: a comparison with film-screen readings in vulnerable areas.

Authors:  Antonio J Salazar; Javier Romero; Oscar Bernal; Angela Moreno; Sofía Velasco; Xavier Díaz
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Digitizing an Analog Radiography Teaching File Under Time Constraint: Trade-Offs in Efficiency and Image Quality.

Authors:  Thomas W Loehfelm; Adam B Prater; Tequam Debebe; Aarti K Sekhar
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 4.  Multi-reader multi-case studies using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve as a measure of diagnostic accuracy: systematic review with a focus on quality of data reporting.

Authors:  Thaworn Dendumrongsup; Andrew A Plumb; Steve Halligan; Thomas R Fanshawe; Douglas G Altman; Susan Mallett
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-26       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Noninferiority and Equivalence Evaluation of Clinical Performance among Computed Radiography, Film, and Digitized Film for Telemammography Services.

Authors:  Antonio J Salazar; Javier A Romero; Oscar A Bernal; Angela P Moreno; Sofía C Velasco; Xavier A Díaz
Journal:  Int J Telemed Appl       Date:  2016-09-29
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.