Comparison of digitized and conventional radiographic images for assessment of hip joint conformation in dogs

American Journal of Veterinary Research

Volumn 67, Issue 9, 2006, Pages 1546-1551

  Essman, Stephanie ^a   Sherman, Ashley ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b School of Medicine   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONSENSUS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; HIP DYSPLASIA; HIP RADIOGRAPHY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KAPPA STATISTICS; NONHUMAN; PELVIS RADIOGRAPHY; RANDOMIZATION;

ANIMALS; DOGS; FEMALE; HIP JOINT; MALE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT;

ANIMALIA; CANIS FAMILIARIS;

EID: 33748752877     PISSN: 00029645     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.67.9.1546     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Krupinski E, Gonzales M, Gonzales C, et al. Evaluation of a digital camera for acquiring radiographic images for telemedicine applications. Telemed J E Health 2000;6:297-302.
2. Kuduvalli GR, Rangayyan RM, Desautels JE. High resolution digital teleradiology: a perspective. J Digit Imaging 1991;4:251-261.
3. De Backer AI, Mortele KJ, De Keulenaer BL. Picture archiving and communication system: the impact of filmless and distance radiology. JBR-BTR 2004;87:300-304.
4. Keller GG, Corley EA. Impact of video images on OFA evaluation of hip status. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1994;35:19-21.
5. Bassignani MJ, Bubash-Faust L, Ciambotti J, et al. Conversion of teaching file cases from film to digital format: a comparison between use of a diagnostic-quality digitizer and use of a flatbed scanner with transparency adapter. Acad Radiol 2003;10:536-542.
6. Martel J, Jimenez MD, Martin-Santos FJ, et al. Accuracy of teleradiology in skeletal disorders: solitary bone lesions and fractures. J Telemed Telecare 1995; 1:13-18.
7. Averch TD, O'Sullivan D, Breitenbach C, et al. Digital radiographic imaging transfer: comparison with plain radiographs. J Endourol 1997;11:99-101.
8. Gitlin JN, Scott WW, Bell K, et al. Interpretation accuracy of a CCD film digitizer. J Digit Imaging 2002;15(suppl 1):57-63.
9. Seeley G, Fisher HD, Stempski MO, et al. Total digital radiology department: spatial resolution requirements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987;148:421-426.
10. Templeton AW, Dwyer SJ III, Johnson JA, et al. A digital radiology imaging system: Description and clinical evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987;149:847-851.
11. Bramble JM, Murphy MD. Comparison of digital and conventional musculoskeletal radiography: observer performance study (lett). Radiology 1990;177:587-588.
12. Reponen J, Lahde S, Tervonen O, et al. Low-cost digital teleradiology. Eur J Radiol 1995;19:226-231.
13. Schellingerhout D, Chew FS, Mullins ME, et al. Projected digital radiologic images for teaching: balance of image quality with data size constraints. Acad Radiol 2002;9:157-162.
14. Yamamoto LG. Using JPEG image compression to facilitate telemedicine. Am J Emerg Med 1995; 13:55-57.
15. Scrivani PV Assessing diagnostic accuracy in veterinary imaging. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2002;43:442-448.
16. Cederberg RA, Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, et al. Influence of the digital image display monitor on observer performance. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999;28:203-207.
17. Sim L, Manthey K, Esdaile P, et al. Comparison of computer display monitors for computed radiography diagnostic application in a radiology PACS. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2004;27:148-150.