Literature DB >> 8497636

Subtle orthopedic fractures: teleradiology workstation versus film interpretation.

W W Scott1, J E Rosenbaum, S J Ackerman, R L Reichle, D Magid, J C Weller, J N Gitlin.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether radiologists perform equally well with plain radiographs or digitized images displayed on a video monitor in interpretation of difficult orthopedic trauma cases. Interpretations with film and those made from a teleradiology system with spatial resolution of 2.35 line pairs per millimeter were compared in 120 difficult cases, 60 with the selected abnormality (ie, fracture or dislocation) and 60 that were control cases. Seven senior radiology residents and one radiology fellow each interpreted 60 randomly ordered cases with the teleradiology system (1,280 x 1,024-pixel monitors) and 60 cases with the original radiographs. The overall accuracy of the readers was 80.6% for film interpretations and 59.6% for teleradiology screen readings (P < .001). Sensitivity was 78.5% for film and 48.8% for on-screen images (P < .001), and specificity was 83.2% for film and 72.3% for on-screen images (P < .025). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed rejection of the null hypothesis in favor of film interpretation (P < .0049). It was concluded that the teleradiology system was not acceptable for primary diagnostic interpretation of difficult fracture cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8497636     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.187.3.8497636

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  13 in total

1.  Characterization of monochrome CRT display systems in the field.

Authors:  H Roehrig; C E Willis; M A Damento
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  A comparative study of conventional mammography film interpretations with soft copy readings of the same examinations.

Authors:  Joseph N Gitlin; Anand K Narayan; Chad A Mitchell; Ali M Akmal; David J Eisner; Lindsy M Peterson; Daisy Nie; Tyler R McClintock
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 4.056

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.  The use of telemedicine in burn care: development of a mobile system for TBSA documentation and remote assessment.

Authors:  D Parvizi; M Giretzlehner; J Dirnberger; R Owen; H L Haller; M V Schintler; P Wurzer; D B Lumenta; L P Kamolz
Journal:  Ann Burns Fire Disasters       Date:  2014-06-30

5.  Clinical trials to validate telemedicine.

Authors:  E G Tangalos
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 4.460

6.  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

7.  Receiver operating characteristic study of image preprocessing for teleradiology and digital workstations.

Authors:  S R Bolle; T Sund; J Størmer
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 8.  The value of current developments in radiology to the accident and emergency department--a pictorial review.

Authors:  D C Lloyd
Journal:  J Accid Emerg Med       Date:  1997-11

9.  Teleradiology for remote diagnosis: a prospective multi-year evaluation.

Authors:  M E Gale; M E Vincent; A H Robbins
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 10.  Current status of domestic telemedicine.

Authors:  J Grigsby
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.460

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.