AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bley, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Langer, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bley, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Langer, 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?
AJR 2003; 181:1487-1490
© American Roentgen Ray Society

Using Receiver Operating Characteristic Methodology to Evaluate the Diagnostic Quality of Radiography on Paper Prints Versus Film

T. A. Bley1, E. Kotter, U. Saueressig, O. S. Springer, D. Fisch, N. A. Ghanem and M. Langer

1 All authors: Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital Freiburg, Hugstetter Stra. 55, Freiburg 79106, Germany.

OBJECTIVE. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic quality of paper prints with film copies in a sample of observers who were trying to detect small coin lesions on radiographs of a phantom.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The phantom consisted of 60 high-contrast and 60 low-contrast test objects, half of which had holes in them. Diameter and depth of the holes varied from 0.5 mm to 2 mm. Fifteen radiographs were obtained from different areas of the test objects. Film copies and paper prints were made using high-quality printers. Five observers independently evaluated 1,800 high-contrast and 1,800 low-contrast images. Data were evaluated using the well-established receiver operating characteristic methodology.

RESULTS. The mean area under the curve rated 0.863 for paper prints (0.859 for high contrast and 0.860 for low contrast) and 0.926 for laser films (0.937 for high contrast and 0.913 for low contrast). The difference between the two imaging techniques was statistically significant for both high- and low-contrast lesions (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION. Detection of small coin lesions on radiographs of a phantom was significantly less sensitive on paper prints than on film. We found paper prints less acceptable for the diagnosis of small-sized lesions.


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 © 2003 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.