AJR ARRS Member Benefits
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Thompson, M.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Thompson, M.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, C
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 153, Issue 6, 1165-1168
Copyright © 1989 by American Roentgen Ray Society


Articles

Evaluation of cardiopulmonary devices on chest radiographs: digital vs analog radiographs

MJ Thompson, RA Kubicka, and C Smith

Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, Chicago, IL 60612.

We compared digital and analog radiographs of the chest for use in detecting and evaluating a variety of cardiopulmonary devices in 40 patients. The devices included 23 endotracheal tubes, 21 Swan-Ganz catheters, 14 central venous pressure catheters, 11 prosthetic valves, 10 chest tubes, six pacemaker wires, and five intraaortic balloon pumps. Each patient had at least one device, with a maximum of five devices (average, 2.3). Forty digital/analog film pairs were compared by five radiologists, who assigned confidence levels for various judgments about each device. The results showed that there were no statistically significant differences in the identification of the devices except for prosthetic valves (all valves were detected on digital radiographs, compared with 62% on analog radiographs). The devices were detected on 96% of the digital radiographs and 90% of the analog radiographs. Although digital and analog radiographs were comparable for detection of most devices, the digital radiographs allowed greater confidence in the identification of the devices and in the identification of the tip and course of Swan-Ganz and central venous pressure catheters.
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?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1989 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.