Comparison of Conventional and Computed Radiography: Assessment of Image Quality and Reader Performance in Skeletal Extremity Trauma

Academic Radiology

Volumn 4, Issue 8, 1997, Pages 570-576

  Lund, Pamela J ^a   Krupinski, Elizabeth A ^a   Pereles, Scott ^a   Mockbee, Brent ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

Bones, radiography; Images, display; Images, interpretation; Radiography, comparative studies

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTHROGRAPHY; ARTICLE; BONE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DISLOCATION; FEMALE; FRACTURE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INJURY; JOINT; LIMB; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; ORTHOPEDICS; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; X RAY FILM;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHROGRAPHY; BONE AND BONES; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; DISLOCATIONS; EXTREMITIES; FEMALE; FRACTURES, BONE; HUMANS; JOINTS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; ORTHOPEDICS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOLOGY; X-RAY FILM;

EID: 0031204597     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1076-6332(97)80207-3     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Murphey MD, Quale JL, Martin NL, Bramble JM, Cook LT, Dwyer SJ III. Computed radiography in musculoskeletal imaging: state of the art. AJR 1992; 158:19-27.
2. Mosser HM, Partan G, Hruby W. Clinical routine operation of a filmless radiology department: three years experience. Proc SPIE 1995; 2435:321-327.
3. Fuchs A, Christianson F. The function of a digitized radiology department after one year in operation. In: Lemke HU, ed. Computer applications in radiology. New York, NY: Elsevier Science, 1996; 1035.
4. Morin RL, Berquist TH, Rueger W. The Mayo Clinic Jacksonville electronic radiology practice. In: Kilcoyne RF, Lear JL, Rowberg AH, eds. Computer applications to assist radiology. Carlsbad, Calif: Symposia Foundation, 1996; 146-151.
5. Elam EA, Rehm K, Hillman BJ, Maloney K, Fajardo LL, McNeill K. Efficacy of digital radiography for the detection of pneumothorax: comparison with conventional chest radiography. AJR 1992; 158:509-514.
6. Fisher PD, Brauer GW. Impact of image size on effectiveness of digital imaging systems. J Digital Imaging 1989; 2:39-41.
7. Wilson AJ, Hodge JC. Digitized radiographs in skeletal trauma: a performance comparison between a digital workstation and the original film images. Radiology 1995; 196:565-568.
8. Scott WW, Bluemke DA, Mysko WK, et al. Interpretation of emergency department radiographs by radiologists and emergency medicine physicians: teleradiology workstation versus radiograph readings. Radiology 1995; 197:223-229.
9. Nodine CF, Kundel HL, Toto LC, Krupinski EA. Recording and analyzing eye-position data using a microcomputer workstation. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 1992; 24:475-485.
10. Krupinski EA, Lund PJ. Why does it take longer to diagnose x-ray images from monitors than film? Acad Radiol 1997, 4:177-182.
11. Kundel HL, LaFollette PS. Visual search patterns and experience with radiological images. Radiology 1972; 103:523-528.
12. Fujita H, Ueda K, Morishita J, et al. Basic imaging properties of a computed radiographic system with photostimulable phosphors. Med Phys 1989; 16:52-59.
13. Sonoda M, Takano M, Miyabara J, et al. Computed radiography utilizing scanning laser stimulated luminescence. Radiology 1983; 148:833-838.
14. Prokop M, Galanski M, Oestmann JW, et al. Storage phosphor versus screen-film radiography: effect of varying exposure parameters and unsharp mask filtering on the detectability of cortical bone defects. Radiology 1990; 177:109-113.
15. Wilson AJ, Mann FA, Murphy WA Jr, Monsees BS, Linn MR. Photostimulable phosphor digital radiography of the extremities: diagnostic accuracy compared with conventional radiography. AJR 1991; 157:533-538.
16. Wilson AJ, Mann FA, West OC, McEnery KW, Murphy WA. Evaluation of the injured cervical spine: comparison of conventional and storage phosphor radiography with a hybrid cassette. Radiology 1994; 193:419-422.
17. Reiner B, Siegel E, McLaurin T, et al. Evaluation of soft-tissue foreign bodies: comparing conventional plain film radiography, computed radiography printed on film, and computed radiography displayed on a computer workstation. AJR 1996; 167:141-144.
18. Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Carmody DP. Visual scanning, pattern recognition and decision making in pulmonary nodule detection. Invest Radiol 1978; 13:175-181.
19. Hu CH, Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Krupinski EA, Toto LC. Searching for bone fractures: a comparison with pulmonary nodule search. Acad Radiol 1994; 1:25-32.
20. Krupinski EA, Maloney K, Bessen SC. Receiver operating characteristic evaluation of computer display of adult portable chest radiographs. Invest Radiol 1994; 29:141-146.
21. Krupinski EA, Weinstein RS, Rozek LS. Experience-related differences in diagnosis from medical images displayed on monitors. Telemed J 1996;2:101-108.