AJR Your Link to CME
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fuhrman, C.
Right arrow Articles by Feist, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fuhrman, C.
Right arrow Articles by Feist, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 150, Issue 5, 1011-1014
Copyright © 1988 by American Roentgen Ray Society


Articles

Storage phosphor radiographs vs conventional films: interpreters' perceptions of diagnostic quality

CR Fuhrman, D Gur, B Good, H Rockette, LA Cooperstein, and JH Feist

Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, PA 15261.

We compared storage phosphor images with high-quality conventional film-screen images by evaluating physicians' perceptions of image quality and their levels of confidence in making diagnostic interpretations. Eight physicians each examined 11 posteroanterior storage phosphor chest images (obtained with an experimental high-resolution storage phosphor system) side by side with conventional film images of the same patients. The storage phosphor images were obtained only minutes after the conventional radiographs were obtained. Storage phosphor images were digitally printed onto films in two different formats: a full-size (12 X 14 in. [30.5 X 35.6 cm]) and a half-size format of four computer-processed, minified images (6 X 7 in. [15.2 X 17.8 cm] each). Most of the responses rated the quality and resolution/sharpness of conventional images, as well as their ability to display the complete lung field, as either "excellent" or "good"; however, the storage phosphor images received significantly better ratings (p less than .05). Computer-processed minified versions of the storage phosphor images also received better ratings than did the conventional images. When the physicians were asked to rate their confidence level in making diagnoses with each of the two techniques, in 74 of 88 cases they indicated that their level of confidence would be at least as high when using the storage phosphor images as when using the conventional images.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Dentomaxillofac RadiolHome page
B Molander, H-G Grondahl, and A Ekestubbe
Quality of film-based and digital panoramic radiography
Dentomaxillofac. Radiol., January 1, 2004; 33(1): 32 - 36.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1988 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.