AJR F and L Medical Products: Radiation Protection & More
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
Right arrow Citation Map
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 Thaete, F. L.
Right arrow Articles by Plunkett, M. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Thaete, F. L.
Right arrow Articles by Plunkett, M. B.
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?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 162, 575-581, Copyright © 1994 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Digital radiography and conventional imaging of the chest: a comparison of observer performance

FL Thaete, CR Fuhrman, JH Oliver, CA Britton, WL Campbell, JH Feist, WH Straub, PL Davis and MB Plunkett
Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, PA 15261-0001.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare observer performance in interpreting high-quality, digitally acquired computed radiographs of the chest displayed on either laser-printed radiographs or a workstation with observer performance in interpreting conventional chest radiographs. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. We performed a receiver- operating-characteristic study in which the presence or absence of five abnormalities was determined by nine experienced radiologists on 310 posteroanterior radiographs of the chest displayed in three forms: conventional radiographs, laser-printed films of digital radiographs, and digital radiographs on a high-resolution workstation. RESULTS. The results of our study suggest that observer performance with laser- printed films of digital radiographs obtained with high-resolution (4K x 5K), high-contrast sensitivity (12 bits) and appropriate exposure is comparable to observer performance with conventional radiographs. Observer performance with digital radiographs displayed on the workstation was found to be significantly lower for abnormalities that contained high-frequency and low-contrast information (e.g., interstitial disease and pneumothorax). CONCLUSION. Computed radiography technology can produce image quality that is adequate for interpreting posteroanterior radiographs of the chest. Observer performance is not as good when radiographs displayed on workstations are used to diagnose specific abnormalities.
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
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
N. A. Obuchowski
How Many Observers Are Needed in Clinical Studies of Medical Imaging?
Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2004; 182(4): 867 - 869.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
C. R. Fuhrman, C. A. Britton, T. Bender, J. H. Sumkin, M. L. Brown, J. M. Holbert, T. S. Chang, H. E. Rockette, and D. Gur
Observer Performance Studies: Detection of Single Versus Multiple Abnormalities of the Chest
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2002; 179(6): 1551 - 1553.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
K. Awai, M. Komi, and S. Hori
Selenium-Based Digital Radiography Versus High-Resolution Storage Phosphor Radiography in the Detection of Solitary Pulmonary Nodules Without Calcification: Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve Analysis
Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2001; 177(5): 1141 - 1144.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
H. L. Kundel, M. Polansky, M. K. Dalinka, R. H. Choplin, W. B. Gefter, J. B. Kneelend, W. T. Miller Sr., and W. T. Miller Jr.
Reliability of Soft-Copy Versus Hard-Copy Interpretation of Emergency Department Radiographs: A Prototype Study
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2001; 177(3): 525 - 528.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. Eng, W. K. Mysko, G. E. R. Weller, R. Renard, J. N. Gitlin, D. A. Bluemke, D. Magid, G. D. Kelen, and W. W. Scott Jr.
Interpretation of Emergency Department Radiographs: A Comparison of Emergency Medicine Physicians with Radiologists, Residents with Faculty, and Film with Digital Display
Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2000; 175(5): 1233 - 1238.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. M. Goo, J.-G. Im, J. H. Kim, J. B. Seo, T. S. Kim, S. J. Shine, and W. Lee
Digital Chest Radiography with a Selenium-Based Flat-Panel Detector Versus a Storage Phosphor System: Comparison of Soft-Copy Images
Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2000; 175(4): 1013 - 1018.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Emerg. Med. J.Home page
J. Benger
A review of telemedicine in accident and emergency: the story so far
Emerg. Med. J., May 1, 2000; 17(3): 157 - 164.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
J. M. Herron, T. M. Bender, W. L. Campbell, J. H. Sumkin, H. E. Rockette, and D. Gur
Effects of Luminance and Resolution on Observer Performance with Chest Radiographs
Radiology, April 1, 2000; 215(1): 169 - 174.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.