AJR InPractice
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 Haygood, T. M.
Right arrow Articles by Whitman, G. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Haygood, T. M.
Right arrow Articles by Whitman, G. 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?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.07.3608
AJR 2009; 192:216-220
© American Roentgen Ray Society

Original Research

Timed Efficiency of Interpretation of Digital and Film-Screen Screening Mammograms

Tamara Miner Haygood1, Jihong Wang2, E. Neely Atkinson3, Deanna Lane1, Tanya W. Stephens1, Parul Patel1,4 and Gary J. Whitman1

1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Unit 1273, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX 77030-4009.
2 Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
3 Biostatistics and Applied Mathematics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
4 Present address: State University of New York, Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY.

OBJECTIVE. Our objective was to compare interpretation speeds for digital and film-screen screening mammograms to test whether other variables might affect interpretation times and thus contribute to the apparent difference in interpretation speed between digital mammograms and film-screen mammograms, and to test whether the use of digital rather than film comparison studies might result in significant time savings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Four readers were timed in the course of actual clinical interpretation of digital mammograms and film-screen mammograms. Interpretation times were compared for subgroups of studies based on the interpretation of the study by BI-RADS code, the number of images, the presence or absence of comparison studies and the type of comparison study, and whether the radiologist personally selected and hung additional films; the same comparisons were made among individual readers.

RESULTS. For all four readers, mean interpretation times were longer for digital mammograms than for film-screen mammograms, with differences ranging from 76 to 202 seconds. The difference in interpretation speed between digital and film-screen mammograms was independent of other variables. Digital mammogram interpretation times were significantly longer than film-screen mammogram interpretation times regardless of whether the digital mammograms were matched with film or digital comparison studies.

CONCLUSION. In screening mammography interpretation, digital mammograms take longer to read than film-screen mammograms, independent of other variables. Exclusive use of digital comparison studies may not cause interpretation times to drop enough to approach the interpretation time required for film-screen mammograms.

Keywords: digital images • digital mammography • efficiency • screening mammography


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 © 2009 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.