American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 173, 1175-1179, Copyright © 1999 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

PACS in sonography: accuracy of interpretation using film compared with monitor display. Picture archiving and communication systems

BS Hertzberg, MA Kliewer, EK Paulson, DH Sheafor, KS Freed, JD Bowie, BA Carroll, DH DeLong and RC Nelson
Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine the relative accuracy of interpretation of sonography when viewed on a monitor or on film. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four radiologists twice interpreted a series of 440 sonograms using the following sequences of display formats for initial and second interpretations: film-film, film- monitor, monitor-film, and monitor-monitor. Reporting discrepancies between the initial and subsequent interpretation were reviewed by an arbitration panel unaware of the display mode. Results were analyzed for differences in error rate attributable to film versus monitor display format, chronology of interpretation, individual observer, and observer seniority. RESULTS: We found no statistically significant difference in the error rate for film (10.3%) versus monitor display format (14.6%) (p = .09). Likewise, we found no significant differences in the error rates attributable to chronology of interpretation (p = .13), individual observer (p = .54), or observer seniority (p = .87). CONCLUSION: Interpretative accuracy is similar whether sonograms are interpreted on a monitor or on film.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Berlin Accuracy of Diagnostic Procedures: Has It Improved Over the Past Five Decades? Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2007; 188(5): 1173 - 1178. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Wang, J. Zhang, L. H. Schwartz, H. Eisenberg, N. M. Ishill, C. S. Moskowitz, P. Scardino, and H. Hricak Incremental Value of Multiplanar Cross-Referencing for Prostate Cancer Staging with Endorectal MRI Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2007; 188(1): 99 - 104. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Cho, W. K. Moon, J. H. Cha, S. M. Kim, B.-K. Han, E.-K. Kim, M. H. Kim, S. Y. Chung, H.-Y. Choi, and J.-G. Im Differentiating Benign from Malignant Solid Breast Masses: Comparison of Two-dimensional and Three-dimensional US Radiology, July 1, 2006; 240(1): 26 - 32. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Furukawa, M. Endo, T. Aramaki, N. Morimoto, T. Uematsu, S. Yukizawa, and S. Yuen Picture Archiving and Communication System Introduced to a New Japanese Cancer Center Hospital Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., July 1, 2004; 34(7): 425 - 428. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Berlin Potential Legal Ramifications of Whole-Body CT Screening: Taking a Peek into Pandora's Box Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2003; 180(2): 317 - 322. [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. I. Reiner, E. L. Siegel, and F. J. Hooper Accuracy of Interpretation of CT Scans: Comparing PACS Monitor Displays and Hard-Copy Images Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2002; 179(6): 1407 - 1410. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. C. Wagner, W. B. Morrison, J. A. Carrino, M. E. Schweitzer, and H. Nothnagel Picture Archiving and Communication System: Effect on Reporting of Incidental Findings Radiology, November 1, 2002; 225(2): 500 - 505. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. S. Rose, D. Mandavia, V. Tayal, M. Blaivas, B. S. Hertzberg, and M. A. Kliewer Physician Sonography Training Competency Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2001; 176(3): 813 - 814. [Full Text] [PDF]