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
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 Don, S.
Right arrow Articles by Siegel, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Don, S.
Right arrow Articles by Siegel, M. 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?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 169, 555-561, Copyright © 1997 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Soft-copy versus hard-copy cranial sonography: intraobserver agreement and workstation efficiency

S Don, GG Reiker, C Hildebolt, GD Shackelford, WH McAlister, R Ryerson, GJ Blaine and MJ Siegel
Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine the intraobserver agreement, confidence level, and efficiency in interpretation of soft-copy (workstation) versus hard-copy (laser- printed film) sonograms of the cranium. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cranial sonograms of 100 premature infants were randomly reviewed twice on both soft-copy and hard-copy images by three observers and were graded for hemorrhage using a five-level scale. The kappa statistic was calculated to measure intraobserver agreement. Differences in agreement were tested for statistical significance with a test for marginal homogeneity. Observers rated their confidence in interpretation using a six-point ordinal scale. Total viewing time was recorded, and videotaped sessions were analyzed for image handling time (opening each case, closing each case, and selecting the next case) and interpretation time. RESULTS: For soft copy versus hard copy, the mean kappa value was .73; for hard-copy 1 versus hard-copy 2, .71; and for soft-copy 1 versus soft-copy 2, .65. None of these differences was statistically significant (p > .05). The mean confidence score was the same for soft copy (5.3) and hard copy (5.3). On average, the observers needed 24 min longer to review 100 studies on soft copy than on hard copy. Opening and closing times for soft copy were significantly faster than for hard copy (p = .0001); however, case selection for soft copy, which was not needed for hard copy, took 4.69-9.09 sec per case. Extrapolated to 100 cases, case selection accounted for 8-15 min of viewing time. CONCLUSION: Radiologist agreement and confidence in the interpretation of cranial sonograms for hemorrhage was the same for soft copy and hard copy. However, viewing times were longer for soft copy. Elimination of inefficiency in case selection could improve image- handling time.
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 © 1997 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.