Comparative assessment of digital and analog radiography: Diagnostic accuracy, cost analysis and quality of care

European Journal of Radiology

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 226-234

  Colin, C ^a   Vergnon, P ^a   Guibaud, L ^b   Borson, O ^c   Pinaudeau, D ^d   Perret Du Cray, M H ^a   Pasquier, J M ^a   Tran Minh, V ^e  

^a HÔTEL DIEU   (France)

^b HÔPITAL DEBROUSSE   (France)

^c EDOUARD HERRIOT HOSPITAL   (France)

^d HOSPICES CIVILS DE LYON   (France)

^e CENTRE HOSPITALIER LYON SUD   (France)

Author keywords

Costs; Digital radiography; Evaluation

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS; HEALTH CARE; PATIENT TREATMENT;

ANALOG RADIOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; QUALITY OF CARE;

DIAGNOSTIC RADIOGRAPHY;

ARTICLE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

COST SAVINGS; FEMALE; FRANCE; HOSPITAL COSTS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGY DEPARTMENT, HOSPITAL; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TIME FACTORS; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 0032008061     PISSN: 0720048X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0720-048X(97)01168-6     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. [1] Coulomb M, Dal Soglio S, Pittet-Barbier L, et al. La Radiographie numérique. Rev Imagerie Méd 1992; 4: 683-690.
2. [2] McMahon H, Vyborny C. Technical advances in chest radiography. AJR 1994; 163: 1049-59.
3. [3] Gatsonis C, McNeil BJ. Collaborative evaluations of diagnostic tests: experience of the radiology diagnostic oncology group. Radiology 1990; 175: 571-75.
4. [4] Phelps CE, Mushlin AI. Focusing technology assessment using medical decision theory. Med Decis Making 1988; 8: 279-89.
5. [5] Drouillard J, Laurent F, Hamdi D, et al. Fluorographie numérique et radiologie conventionnelle: comparaison en imagerie avec produits de contraste. Rev Imagerie Méd 1992; 4: 691-696.
6. [6] Guyatt G, Drummond MF. Guidelines for the clinical and economic assessment of health technologies: the case of magnetic resonance. Int J Technol Assess 1985; 1: 551-566.
7. [7] Salmi LR, Collet JP. Lecture critique des articles médicaux: II. Juger de l'intérêt d'un test diagnostique. Rev Prat 1991; 41: 2734-2736; 2741-2743.
8. [8] Salmi LR, Collet JP. Lecture critique des articles médicaux: VI. Champs d'application et limites. Rev Prat, 1992; 42: 477-479.
9. [9] Guyatt GH, Tugwell PX, Feeny DH, Drummond MF, Haynes RB. The role of before-after studies of therapeutic impact in the evaluation of diagnostic technologies. J Chronic Dis 1986; 39: 295-304.
10. [10] Teboul F, Moatti JP, Colin C. l'Analyse économique des stratégies médicales: du conflit à la complémentarité avec la clinique. J Eco Méd 1991; 9: 86-96.
11. [11] Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. Volume I, Standards. Chicago: JCAHO 1992.
12. [12] King's Fund Centre. Organisational Audit Programme. Standards for an acute hospital. London: King's Fund Centre 1992.
13. [13] Franken EA, Berbaum KS, Marley SM, Smith WL, Sato Y, Kao SC, Milam SG. Evaluation of a digital workstation for interpreting neonatal examinations. A receiver operating characteristic study. Invest Radiol 1992; 27: 732-737.
14. [14] Nab HW, Karssemeijer N, Van Eming LJ, Hendriks JH. Comparison of digital and conventional mammography: a ROC study of 270 mammograms. Med Inf 1992; 17: 125.
15. [15] De Maeseneer M, Beeckman P, Osteaux M, Mattheus R, Hoste M, Bastaerts Y, Jong B. Detecting clustered microcalcifications in the female breast: secondary digitized images versus mammograms. J Belg Radiology 1992; 75: 173-178.
16. [16] Jonsson A, Borg A, Hannesson P, Herrlin K, Jonsson K, Sloth M, Petterson H. Film-screen vs. digital radiography in rheumatoid arthritis of the hand. A ROC analysis. Acta Radiol 1994; 35: 311-318.
17. [17] Krug B, Harsnischmacher U, Krahe T, Fischbach R, Altenburg A, Krings F. Digital luminescence radiography and conventional radiography in abdominal contrast examinations. Acta Radiol 1995; 36: 284-289.
18. [18] Ishigaki T, Sakuma S, Endo T, Ikeda M. Diagnostic usefulness of chest computed radiography-film versus cathode-ray tube images. J Digit Imaging 1995; 8: 25-30.
19. [19] Thompson MJ, Kubicka RA, Smith C. Evaluation of Cardiopulmonary Devices on Chest Radiographs: Digital vs Analog Radiographs. AJR 1989; 153: 1165-1168.
20. [20] Cox GG, Cook LT, McMillan JH, Rosenthal SJ, Dwyer SJ. Chest Radiography: comparison of high-resolution digital displays with conventional and digital film. Radiology 1990; 176: 771-76.
21. [21] Templeton AW, Dwyer III, Cox SJ, Lee GG, Johnson KR, Martin JA, NL et al. A digital radiology imaging system: description and clinical evaluation. AJR 1987; 149: 847-851.
22. [22] Ackerman SJ, Gitlin JN, Gayler RW, Flagle CD, Eng D, Bryan RN. Receiver operating characteristic analysis of fracture and pneumonia detection: comparison of laser-digitized workstation images and conventional analog radiographs. Radiology 1993; 186: 263-68.
23. [23] Wilson AJ, Hodge JC. Digital radiographs in skeletal trauma: a performance comparison between a digital workstation and the original film images. Radiology 1995; 196: 565-568.
24. [24] Scott WW, Rosenbaum JE, Ackerman SJ, Reichle RL, Magid D, Weller JC, Gitlin JN. Subtle orthopedic fractures: teleradiology workstation versus film interpretation. Radiology 1993; 187: 811-15.
25. [25] Kastan DJ, Ackerman LV, Feczko PJ. Digital gastrointestinal imaging: the effect of pixel size on detection of subtle mucosal abnormalities. Radiology 1987; 162(3): 853-856
26. [26] Correa J, Souto M, Tahoces PG, Malagri KS, Tucker DM, Larkin JJ, Kuhlman J, Barnes GT, Zerhouni EA, Fraser RG, et al. Digital chest radiography: comparison of unprocessed and processed images in the detection of solitary pulmonary nodules. Radiology 1995; 195: 253-258.
27. [27] Van Heesewijk HP, Neitzel U, Van Der Graaf Y, De Valois JC, Feldberg MA. Digital chest imaging with a selenium detector comparison with conventional radiography for visualization of specific anatomic regions of the chest. AJR 1995; 165: 535-540.
28. [28] Walker CW, Fitzrandolph RL, Collins DN, Dalrymple GV. Arthrography of painful hips following arthroplasty: digital versus plain film subtraction. Skeletal Radiol 1991; 20: 403-407.
29. [29] Sacks EM, Fajardo LL, Hillman BJ, Drach GW, Gaines JA, Claypool HR, Clinger NJ, Fillmore DJ, Hunt KR, Pond GD et al. Prospective comparison of plain abdominal radiography with conventional and digital renal tomography in assessing renal extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients. J Urol 1990; 144(6): 1341-1346.
30. [30] Mansson LG, Kheddache S, Schlossman D, Börjesson J, Hakansson E, Matisson S. et al. Digital chest radiography with a large image intensifier: evaluation of diagnostic performance and patient exposure. Acta Radiol 1989: 337-342.
31. [31] Manster BJ. Digital wrist arthrography: Precision in determining the site of radiocarpal-midcarpal communication. AJR 1986; 147: 563-566.
32. [32] Freedman M, Farber M, Edelstein G, Tildon-Burton J Gill. Electronic fluorography for the performance of cine hysterosalpingography. Obstetrical Gynecol 1987; 69: 661-664.
33. [33] Buckwalter KA, Braunstein EM. Digital Skeletal Radiography AJR 1992; 58: 1071-1080.
34. [34] Smathers RSL, Brody WR. Digital radiography: current and future trends. Br J Radiol 1985; 58: 285-307.
35. [35] Resnick D, Kerr R, Andre M, Guerra J, Cone RO, Atkinson D, Pineda C. Digital arthrography in the evaluation of painful joint prostheses. Invest Radiol 1984; 19: 432-437.