PURPOSE: To compare the clinical diagnostic accuracy of hard-copy readings of screen-film bedside chest radiographs and both hard- and soft-copy readings of bedside chest computed radiographs obtained in a medical intensive care unit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two samples of 95 cases were assembled from chest images obtained in 541 patients with either screen-film radiography or computed radiography. The cases were stratified according to the clinical problem for which the examination was ordered; the corresponding diagnosis was verified by a panel of two or three radiologists. Four radiologists blindly read the hard-copy images obtained with screen-film or computed radiography. Six months later, the radiologists read the computed radiographs by using an 8-bit, 1,684 x 2,048-pixel display. The data were analyzed by using multireader-multicase receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of variance. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in the area under the ROC curve were found between any of the methods. CONCLUSION: The results provide some justification for using bedside chest computed radiography and for reading soft-copy images from a high-quality display.
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical diagnostic accuracy of hard-copy readings of screen-film bedside chest radiographs and both hard- and soft-copy readings of bedside chest computed radiographs obtained in a medical intensive care unit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two samples of 95 cases were assembled from chest images obtained in 541 patients with either screen-film radiography or computed radiography. The cases were stratified according to the clinical problem for which the examination was ordered; the corresponding diagnosis was verified by a panel of two or three radiologists. Four radiologists blindly read the hard-copy images obtained with screen-film or computed radiography. Six months later, the radiologists read the computed radiographs by using an 8-bit, 1,684 x 2,048-pixel display. The data were analyzed by using multireader-multicase receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of variance. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in the area under the ROC curve were found between any of the methods. CONCLUSION: The results provide some justification for using bedside chest computed radiography and for reading soft-copy images from a high-quality display.
Authors: C W Mattern; B F King; N J Hangiandreou; A Swenson; L L Jorgenson; W E Webbles; T W Okrzynski; B J Erickson; B Williamson; G S Forbes Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 4.056