Reporting requirements for skeletal digital radiography: Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy presentation

Radiology

Volumn 207, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 249-254

  O'Connor, Philip J ^a   Davies, Andrew G ^a   Fowler, Richard C ^a   Lintott, David J ^a   Bury, Robert F ^a   Parkin, Geoffrey J S ^a   Martinez, Delia ^a   Saifuddin, Asif ^a   Cowen, Arnold R ^a  

^a LEEDS GENERAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bones, radiography; Images, display; Parathyroid, hyperparathyroidism; Picture archiving and communication system (PACS); Radiography, digital; Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC)

Indexed keywords

ACROOSTEOLYSIS; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; HAND RADIOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MONITOR; OSTEOLYSIS; PERIOSTEUM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SKELETON RADIOGRAPHY;

EID: 0031981340     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.207.1.9530323     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Wilson AJ. Filmless musculoskeletal radiology: why is it taking so long? AJR 1995; 165:105-107.
2. Jonsson A, Borg A, Hannesson P, et al. Film screen vs digital radiography in rheumatoid arthritis of the hand: a ROC study. Acta Radiol 1994; 35:311-318.
3. Richmond BJ, Powers C, Piraino DW, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of digitized images vs plain films: a study of the joints of the fingers. AJR 1992; 28:437-441.
4. Davies AG, Cowen AR, Parkin GJS, Bury RF. Optimising processing and presentation in PPCR imaging. Proc SPIE 1996; 2712:189-195.
5. Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 1978; 8:283-298.
6. Metz CE. ROC methodology in radiographic imaging. Invest Radiol 1986; 21: 720-733.
7. Hanley JA. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology: the state of the art. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging 1989; 29:307-335.
8. Ritz E, Prager P, Krempien B, Bommer J, Malluche HH, Schmidt-Gayk H. Skeletal x-ray findings and bone histology in patients on hemodialysis. Kidney Int 1978; 13:316-323.
9. Parkin GJS. A clinical evaluation of the Philips PCR Graphic Iie Computed Radiography System. III. Hands: MDD evaluation report MDD/92/14. London, England: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1992.
10. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982; 143:29-36.
11. Metz CE. Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. Proc SPIE 1992; 345: 322-324.
12. Davies AG, Cowen AR, Fowler RC, et al. Spatial resolution requirements for soft-copy reporting in digital radiography. Proc SPIE 1996; 2707:334-343.
13. Swets JA, Pickett RM. Evaluation of diagnostic systems: methods from signal detection theory. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1982.
14. Armitage P. Statistical methods in medical research. Oxford, England: Blackwell Scientific, 1971.
15. Dawood RM, Craig JOMC, Todd-Pokrapek A, et al. Clinical diagnosis from digital displays: results from the St Mary's evaluation project. Br J Radiol 1994; 67:1-10.
16. MacMahon H, Vyborny CJ, Metz CE, Doi K, Sabeti S, Soloman SL. Digital radiography of subtle pulmonary abnormalities: an ROC study on the effect of pixel size on observer performance. Radiology 1986; 28:21-26.
17. Goodman LR, Foley WD, Wilson CR, Rimm AA, Lawson TL. Digital and conventional chest images: observer performance with a film digital radiography system. Radiology 1986; 28:27-33.
18. MacMahon H, Metz CE, Doi K, Kim T, Giger ML, Chan HP. Digital chest radiography: effect on diagnostic accuracy of hardcopy, conventional video, and reversed gray-scale video display formats. Radiology 1988; 38:669-673.
19. Cox GG, Cook LT, McMillan JH, Rosenthall SJ, Dwyer SJ. Chest radiography: comparison of high-resolution displays with conventional and digital film. Radiology 1990; 176:771-776.
20. Thaeate FL, Fuhrman CR, Oliver JH, et al. Digital radiography and conventional imaging of the chest: a comparison of observer performance. AJR 1994; 32:575-581.
21. Barels J, Lubbers AP, Slump CH, Kemner R, Hoeven A. Improving display quality by a digital convergence correction system for multibeam CRT's. Proc SPIE 1996; 2707:571-579.