AJR Women's Imaging Online
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 Steckel, R. J.
Right arrow Articles by Zucker, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Steckel, R. J.
Right arrow Articles by Zucker, M.
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 164, 837-841, Copyright © 1995 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Comparison of hard- and soft-copy digital chest images with different matrix sizes for managing coronary care unit patients

RJ Steckel, P Batra, S Johnson, J Sayre, K Brown, K Haker, D Young and M Zucker
Department of Radiological Sciences, UCLA School of Medicine 90024- 1721, USA.

OBJECTIVE. This study was to determine whether different digital display formats for portable chest radiographs of coronary care unit patients would provide comparable information for clinical care. In particular, we tried to ascertain whether 1024 x 1024 pixel (1K) images on a picture archiving and communication system (PACS) workstation would be comparable to 1760 x 2140 pixel (2K) images on workstations or to digital films. If comparability could be proved, we hypothesized that 1K workstations could considerably lower equipment and film costs and facilitate image transmission from point to point. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Four chest radiologists read a panel of chest studies assembled from 98 coronary care unit patients, comparing 1K and 2K soft- copy images with digital hard copies. For all three image types for the 98 patients, the readers evaluated nine image parameters that the cardiologists deemed essential for clinical decision making. Two other chest radiologists reviewed each patient's three image types, historical chest images, current and prior radiologic reports, and medical record to determine the consensus, or "truth findings." RESULTS. With one exception (small pleural effusions), the receiver operating characteristic analysis showed no significant differences in the clinical information derived from the three image types. CONCLUSION. For clinical management in a coronary care unit, comparable information can be obtained from digital radiologic chest studies using a 1K x 1K soft-copy format, a 2K x 2K soft-copy format, or a hard copy (film). Substantial savings in cost and time are therefore possible by using soft-copy images and lower resolution (1K x 1K) workstations and, when necessary, by transmitting images on regular telephone lines.
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
C. Balassy, M. Prokop, M. Weber, J. Sailer, C. J. Herold, and C. Schaefer-Prokop
Flat-Panel Display (LCD) Versus High-Resolution Gray-Scale Display (CRT) for Chest Radiography: An Observer Preference Study
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2005; 184(3): 752 - 756.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Intensive Care MedHome page
B. Trotman-Dickenson
Radiology in the Intensive Care Unit (Part I)
J Intensive Care Med, July 1, 2003; 18(4): 198 - 210.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.