Intra- and interobserver variability of board-certified veterinary radiologists and veterinary general practitioners for pulmonary nodule detection in standard and inverted display mode images of digital thoracic radiographs of dogs

Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association

Volumn 238, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 998-1003

  Reese, David J ^a,b   Green, Eric M ^a   Zekas, Lisa J ^a   Flores, Jane E ^a   Hill, Lawrence N ^a   Winter, Matthew D ^b   Berry, Clifford R ^b   Ackerman, Norman ^b  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b University of Florida   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ANIMAL DISEASE; ARTICLE; DOG; DOG DISEASE; LUNG TUMOR; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY; VETERINARY MEDICINE;

ANIMALS; DOG DISEASES; DOGS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC; VETERINARIANS;

CANIS FAMILIARIS;

EID: 79955595055     PISSN: 00031488     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2460/javma.238.8.998     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Dinkel E, Mundinger A, Schopp D, et al. Diagnostic imaging in metastatic lung disease. Lung 1990;168(suppl):1129-1136.
2. Davis SD. CT evaluation for pulmonary metastases in patients with extrathoracic malignancy. Radiology 1991;180:1-12.
3. Muhm JR, Brown LR, Crowe JK. Use of computed tomography in the detection of pulmonary nodules. Mayo Clin Proc 1977;52:345-348.
4. Muhm JR, Brown LR, Crowe JK. Detection of pulmonary nodules by computed tomography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1977;128:267-270.
5. Forrest LJ. Radiology corner-advantages of the three view thoracic radiographic examination in instances other than metastasis. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1992;33:340-341.
6. Lang J, Wortman JA, Glickman LT, et al. Sensitivity of radiographic detection of lung metastases in the dog. Vet Radiol 1986;27:74-78.
7. Suter PF, Carrig CB, O'Brien TR, et al. Radiographic recognition of primary and metastatic pulmonary neoplasms of dogs and cats. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1974;15:3-24.
8. Tiemessen I. Thoracic metastases of canine mammary gland tumors. A radiographic study. Vet Radiol 1989;30:249-252.
9. Holt D, Van Winkle T, Schelling C, et al. Correlation between thoracic radiographs and postmortem findings in dogs with hemangiosarcoma: 77 cases (1984-1989). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1992;200:1535-1539.
10. Hammer AS, Bailey MQ, Sagartz JE. Retrospective assessment of thoracic radiographic findings in metastatic canine hemangiosarcoma. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1993;34:235-238.
11. Barthez PY, Hornof WJ, Théon AP, et al. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of the performance of various radiographic protocols when screening dogs for pulmonary metastases. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1994;204:237-240.
12. Poteet BA. Veterinary teleradiology. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2008;49:S33-S36.
13. Mattoon JS, Smith C. Breakthroughs in radiography: computed radiography. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet 2004;26:58-66.
14. Mattoon JS. Digital radiography. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2006;19:123-132.
15. Cruz R. Digital radiography, image archiving and image display: practical tips. Can Vet J 2008;49:1122-1123.
16. Lo WY, Puchalski SM. Digital image processing. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2008;49:S42-S47.
17. Kheddache S, Mansson LG, Angelhed JE, et al. Digital chest radiography: should images be presented in negative or positive mode? Eur J Radiol 1991;13:151-155.
18. Sheline ME, Brikman I, Epstein DM, et al. The diagnosis of pulmonary nodules: comparison between standard and inverse digitized images and conventional chest radiographs. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989;152:261-263.
19. Manninen H, Partanen K, Lehtovirta J, et al. Image processing in digital chest radiography: effect on diagnostic efficacy. Eur J Radiol 1992;14:164-168.
20. Oestmann JW, Kushner DC, Bourgouin PM, et al. Subtle lung cancers: impact of edge enhancement and gray scale reversal on detection with digitized chest radiographs. Radiology 1988;167:657-658.
21. Oestmann JW, Rubens JR, Bourgouin PM, et al. Impact of postprocessing on the detection of simulated pulmonary nodules with digital radiography. Invest Radiol 1989;24:467-471.
22. MacMahon H, Metz CE, Doi K, et al. Digital chest radiography: effect on diagnostic accuracy of hard copy, conventional video, and reversed gray scale video display formats. Radiology 1988;168:669-673.
23. Ishida M, Doi K, Loo LN, et al. Digital image processing: effect on detectability of simulated low-contrast radiographic patterns. Radiology 1984;150:569-575.
24. Krupinski EA, Evanoff M, Ovitt T, et al. Influence of image processing on chest radiograph interpretation and decision changes. Acad Radiol 1998;5:79-85.
25. Ishigaki T, Endo T, Ikeda M, et al. Subtle pulmonary disease: detection with computed radiography versus conventional chest radiography. Radiology 1996;201:51-60.
26. Fraser RG, Breatnach E, Barnes GT. Digital radiography of the chest: clinical experience with a prototype unit. Radiology 1983;148:1-5.
27. Prabhu SP, Gandhi S, Goddard PR. Ergonomics of digital imaging. Br J Radiol 2005;78:582-586.
28. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983;148:839-843.
29. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-174.
30. Eng J. Sample size estimation: how many individuals should be studied? Radiology 2003;227:309-313.
31. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the areas under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29-36.
32. Armbrust LJ, Hoskinson JJ, Biller DS, et al. Comparison of digitized and direct viewed (analog) radiographic images for detection of pulmonary nodules. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2005;46:361-367.