PACS in radiology. Accuracy of interpretation of CT scans: Comparing PACS monitor displays and hard-copy images

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 179, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 1407-1410

  Reiner, Bruce I ^a,b   Siegel, Eliot L ^a,b   Hooper, Frank J ^a  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABDOMEN; APPARATUS; ARTICLE; BRAIN; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISPLAY SYSTEM; FILM; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THORAX; VISUAL DISPLAY UNIT; ABDOMINAL RADIOGRAPHY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HOSPITAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; PELVIS; RADIOGRAPHY; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY; X RAY FILM;

BRAIN; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; PELVIS; RADIOGRAPHY, ABDOMINAL; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC; RADIOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEMS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; X-RAY FILM;

EID: 0036883883     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.179.6.1791407     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Siegel EL, Diaconis JN, Pomerantz S, Allman R, Briscoe B. Making filmless radiology work. J Digit Imaging 1995;8:151-155
2. Langlotz CP, Even-Shoshan O, Seshadri SS, et al. A methodology for the economic assessment of picture archiving and communication systems. J Digit Imaging 1995;8:95-102
3. Hilsenrath PE, Smith WL, Berbaum KS, Franken EA, Owen DA. Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of PACS. AJR 1991;156:177-180
4. Pizer SM, Beard DV. Medical image workstations: State of science and technology. J Digit Imaging 1989;2:185-193
5. Beard DV, Hemminger BM, Denelsbeck KM, Johnston RE. How many screens does a CT workstation need? J Digit Imaging 1994;7:69-76
6. Foley WD, Jacobson DR, Taylor AJ, et al. Display of CT studies on a two-screen electronic workstation versus a film panel alternator: Sensitivity and efficiency among radiologists. Radiology 1990;174:769-773
7. Berbaum KS, Franken EA, Honda H, McGuire C, Weis RR, Badoon T. Evaluation of a PACS work-station for assessment of body CT studies. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1990;14:853-858
8. Beard DV, Hemminger BM, Perry JR, et al. Interpretation of CT studies: Single-screen workstation versus film alternator for fast CT interpretation. Radiology 1993;187:565-569
9. Straub WH, Gur D, Good WF, et al. Primary CT diagnosis of abdominal masses in a PACS environment. Radiology 1991;178:739-741
10. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ, Pomerantz S, Dahlke A, Rallis D. Radiologist productivity in the interpretation of CT scans: A comparison of PACS with conventional film images. AJR 2001; 176:861-864
11. Siegel EL, Reiner BI, Cadogan M. Frequency and impact of high-resolution monitor failure in a filmless imaging department. J Digit Imaging 2000;13:114-118
12. Lowitt MH, Kessler II, Kauffman L, et al. Teledermatology and in person examinations: A comparison of patient and physician perceptions and diagnostic agreement. Arch Dermatol 1998;139:471-476
13. Hirota H, Shimamoto K, Yamakawa K, et al. Clinical evaluation of newly developed CRT viewing station: CT reading and observer's performance. Comput Med Imaging Graph 1995;19:281-285
14. Beard DV, Hemminger BM, Perry JR, et al. Interpretation of CT studies: Single-screen work-station versus film alternator. Radiology 1993;187:565-569
15. Beard DV, Molina PL, Muller KE, et al. Interpretation time of serial chest CT examinations with stacked-metaphor workstation versus film alternator. Radiology 1995;197:753-758
16. Hertzberg BS, Kliewer MA, Paulson EK, et al. PACS in sonography: Accuracy of interpretation using film compared with monitor display. AJR 1999;173:1175-1179
17. Kundel HL, Polansky M, Dalinka MK, et al. Reliability of soft-copy versus hard-copy interpretation of emergency department radiographs: A prototype study. AJR 2001;177:525-528
18. Gay SB, Sobel AH, Young LQ, Dwyer SJ 3rd. Processes involved in reading imaging studies: Workflow analysis and implications for workstation development. J Digit Imaging 1997:10:40-45
19. Pomerantz SM, White CS, Krebs TL, et al. Liver and bone window settings for soft-copy interpretation of chest and abdominal CT. AJR 2000;174:311-314
20. Lev MH, Farkas J. Gemmete JJ, et al. Acute stroke: Improved nonenhanced CT detection - Benefits of soft-copy interpretation by using variable window width and center level settings. Radiology 1999;213:150-155
21. Mathie AG, Strickland NH. Interpretation of CT scans with PACS image display in stack mode. Radiology 1997;203:207-209
22. Memel DS, Berland LL. CT of bowel obstruction: Interpretation using cine-paging. (letter) AJR 1995:164:766-767