Detection of interstitial lung abnormalities on picture archive and communication system video monitors.

The purpose of this study was to compare the detection of interstitial lung abnormalities on video display workstation monitors between radiologists experienced with video image interpretation and radiologists who lack this experience. Twenty-four patients with interstitial lung abnormalities documented by high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) and lung biopsy, and 26 control patients with no history of pulmonary disease or a normal HRCT and normal chest radiographs were studied. Images were acquired using storage phosphor digital radiography and displayed on 1,640 x 2,048 pixel resolution video monitors. Five board-certified radiologists evaluated the images in a blinded and randomized manner by using a six-point presence of abnormality grading scale. Three radiologists were from 1 to 4 years out of residency and considered to be experienced workstation monitor readers with between 1 to 3 years of video monitor image interpretation. For the inexperienced readers, one radiologist had no prior experience with reading images from a video monitor and was direct out of residency, and the other radiologist had less than 4 months of intermittent exposure and was 1 year out of residency. Sensitivity and specificity were determined for individual readers. Positive predictive values, negative predictive values, accuracy, and receiver-operating curves were also generated. A comparison was made between experienced and inexperienced readers. For readers experienced with video monitor image interpretation, the sensitivity ranged from 87.5% to 92%, specificity from 69% to 92%, positive predictive value (PPV) from 73% to 87.5%, negative predictive value (NPV) from 87% to 90%, and accuracy from 80% to 88%. For inexperienced readers, these values were sensitivity 58%, specificity 50% to 65%, PPV 52% to 61%, NPV 56.5% to 63%, and accuracy 54% to 62%. Comparing image interpretation between experienced and inexperienced readers, there were statistically significant differences for sensitivity (P < .01), specificity (P < .01), PPV (P < .05), NPV (P < .05), accuracy (P < .05), and area under the receiver operator curve (Az) (P < .01). Within the respective experienced and inexperienced groups, no statistical significant differences were present. Our results show that digitally acquired chest radiographs displayed on high-resolution workstation monitors are adequate for the detection of interstitial lung abnormalities when the images are interpreted by radiologists experienced with video image interpretation. Radiologists inexperienced with video monitor image interpretation, however, cannot reliably interpret images for the detection of interstitial lung abnormalities.