Comparison between differently priced devices for digital capture of X-Ray films using computed tomography as a gold standard: A multireader-multicase receiver operating characteristic curve study

Telemedicine and e-Health

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 275-282

  Salazar, Antonio J ^a   Camacho, Juan Camilo ^b   Aguirre, Diego Andrés ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LOS ANDES   (Colombia)

^b HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO FUNDACIÓN SANTA FE DE BOGOTÁ   (Colombia)

Author keywords

e health; telehealth; teleradiology

Indexed keywords

CAPTURE TIME; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL IMAGE; EHEALTH; FILM DIGITIZERS; FLATBED SCANNERS; GOLD STANDARDS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC CURVES; SECONDARY VARIABLES; SPECIALIZED TECHNOLOGIES; STATISTICAL DIFFERENCES; TELEHEALTH; TELERADIOLOGY; TESTED DEVICES; TRAINING REQUIREMENT;

CAMERAS; CHEMICAL SENSORS; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; DISEASES; EQUIPMENT; IMAGE QUALITY; MEDICAL COMPUTING; PATHOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; TOMOGRAPHY; X RAY FILMS; X RAYS;

DIGITAL DEVICES;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; COLOMBIA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; STATISTICS; X RAY FILM;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COLOMBIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; ROC CURVE; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 79957588886     PISSN: 15305627     EISSN: 15563669     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2010.0189     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Salazar AJ, Kopec A. Aplicaciones de Telecommunicaciones en Salud en la Subregión Andina: Telemedicina, 2nd edition. 2006. Available at www.orasconhu.org/index.php?IDIOMA=SP&plantilla=contenido-galeria- detalle&ncategoria1=110&ncontenido=86 (last accessed November 1, 2010).
2. Morón FE, Meléndez P, Mart́inez C. Exactitud diagnóstica en la detección de anormalidades en la radiograf́ia de tórax: Telerradioloǵia vs. radioloǵia convencional. Rev Colomb Radiol 1998;9:375-380.
3. Gitlin JN, Narayan AK, Mitchell CA, Akmal AM, Eisner DJ, Peterson LM, Nie D, McClintock TR. A comparative study of conventional mammography film interpretations with soft copy readings of the same examinations. J Digit Imaging 2007;20:42-52. (Pubitemid 46555366)
4. Eng J, Mysko WK, Weller GE, Renard R, Gitlin JN, Bluemke DA, Magid D, Kelen GD, Scott WW Jr. Interpretation of Emergency Department Radiographs: A comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty, and film with digital display. AJR 2000;175:1233-1238.
5. Powell KA, Obuchowski NA, Chilcote WA, Barry MM, Ganobcik SN, Cardenosa G. Film-screen versus digitized mammography: Assessment of clinical equivalence. AJR 1999;173:889-894. (Pubitemid 29451278)
6. Slasky BS, Gur D, Good WF, Costa-Greco MA, Harris KM, Cooperstein LA, Rockette HE. Receiver operating characteristic analysis of chest image interpretation with conventional, laser-printed, and high-resolution workstation images. Radiology 1990;174:775-780. (Pubitemid 20089670)
7. Szot A, Jacobson FL, Munn S, Jazayeri D, Nardell E, Harrison D, Drosten R, Ohno-Machado L, Smeaton LM, Fraser HS. Diagnostic accuracy of chest X-rays acquired using a digital camera for low-cost teleradiology. Int J Med Inf 2004;73:65-73. (Pubitemid 38232643)
8. Krupinski E, Gonzales M, Gonzales C, Weinstein RS. Evaluation of a digital camera for acquiring radiographic images for telemedicine applications. Telemed J E Health 2000;6:297-302.
9. Cone SW, Carucci LR, Yu J, Rafiq A, Doarn CR, Merrell RC. Acquisition and evaluation of radiography images by digital camera. Telemed J E Health 2005;11:130-136. (Pubitemid 40617129)
10. Javadi M, Subhannachart P, Levine S, Vijitsanguan C, Tungsagunwattana S, Dowell SF, Olsen SJ. Diagnosing pneumonia in rural Thailand: Digital cameras versus film digitizers for chest radiograph teleradiology. Int J Infect Dis 2006;10:129-135. (Pubitemid 43255600)
11. Ruess L, Uyehara CF, Shiels KC, Cho KH, O'Connor SC, Person DA, Whitton RK. Digitizing pediatric chest radiographs: Comparison of low-cost, commercial off-the-shelf technologies. Pediatr Radiol 2001;31:841-847. (Pubitemid 33114946)
12. Kundel HL, Gefter W, Aronchick J, Miller W Jr., Hatabu H, Whitfill CH, Miller W Sr. Accuracy of bedside chest hard-copy screen-film versus hard-and soft-copy computed radiographs in a medical intensive care unit: Receiver operating characteristic analysis. Radiology 1997;205:859-863. (Pubitemid 27516728)
13. Kido S, Ikezoe J, Takeuchi N, Kondoh H, Tomiyama N, Jokoh T, Kohno N, Takashima S, Yamagami H, Naito H, et al. Interpretation of subtle interstitial lung abnormalities: Conventional versus storage phosphor radiography. Radiology 1993;187:527-533. (Pubitemid 23127866)
14. Ueguchi T, Johkoh T, Tomiyama N. Full-size digital storage phosphor chest radiography: Effect of 4K versus 2K matrix size on observer performance in detection of subtle interstitial abnormalities. Radiat Med 2005;23:170-174. (Pubitemid 40874477)
15. Fawcett T. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recogn Lett 2006;27: 861-874.
16. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29-36. (Pubitemid 12142173)
17. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the area under two ROC curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983;148:839-843. (Pubitemid 13033817)
18. Pepe MS. The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004.
19. Swets JA, Pickett RM. Evaluation of diagnostic systems: Methods from signal detection theory. New York: Academic Press, 1982.
20. Metz CE. ROC methodology inradiologic imaging. Invest Radiol 1986;21:720-733.
21. Swets JA. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 1988;240:1285-1293.
22. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837-845.
23. Obuchowski NA. Multireader, multimodality receiver operating characteristic curve studies: Hypothesis testing and sample size estimation using an analysis of variance approach with dependent observations. Acad Radiol 1995;2 Suppl 1:S22-S29; discussion S57-64, S70-71 pas.
24. Obuchowski NA, Rockette HE. Hypothesis testing of diagnostic accuracy for multiple readers and multiple tests: An anova approach with dependent observations. Comm Stat Simulat Comput 1994;24:285-308.
25. Hillis SL, Obuchowski NA, Schartz KM, Berbaum KS. A comparison of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz and Obuchowski-Rockette methods for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) data. Stat Med 2005;24:1579-1607. (Pubitemid 40716355)
26. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Lenth RV, Chen YF, Donaghy BA. Monte Carlo validation of a multireader method for receiver operating characteristic discrete rating data: Factorial experimental design. Acad Radiol 1998;5:591-602. (Pubitemid 28405446)
27. Grigsby J, Schlenker RE, Kaehny MM, Shaughnessy PW, Sandberg EJ. Analytic framework for evaluation of telemedicine. Telemed J 1995; 1:31-39.
28. Grigsby J, Brega AG, Devore PA. The evaluation of telemedicine and health services research. Telemed J E Health 2005;11:317-328. (Pubitemid 41077371)
29. Collins CD, Lopez A, Mathie A, Wood V, Jackson JE, Roddie ME. Quantification of pneumothorax size on chest radiographs using interpleural distances: Regression analysis based on volume measurements from helical CT. AJR 1995;165:1127-1130.
30. Obuchowski NA. Sample size tables for receiver operating characteristic studies. AJR 2000;175:603-608.
31. American College of Radiology. ACR Standard for Teleradiology. Revised 2002 (Res. 11). Effective 1/1/03. pp. 13-21. Available at http://imaging. stryker.com/images/ACR-Standards-Teleradiology.pdf (last accessed March 25, 2011).
32. Schartz KM, Hillis SL, Berbaum KS, Dorfman DD. DBM MRMC 2.2. 2008. Medical Image Perception Laboratory (http://perception.radiology.uiowa.edu) and the Kurt Rossmann Laboratories for Radiologic Image Research (http://xray.bsd.uchicago.edu/krl/). Available at http://xray.bsd.uchicago.edu/ cgi-bin/roc-software.cgi. (last accessed November 1, 2010).
33. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the Jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992;27:723-731.
34. Hillis SL, Berbaum KS. Monte Carlo validation of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method using normalized pseudovalues and less data-based model simplification. Acad Radiol 2005;12:1534-1541. (Pubitemid 41729034)
35. Roe CA, Metz CE. Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method for statistical analysis of multireader, multimodality receiver operating characteristic data: Validation with computer simulation. Acad Radiol 1997;4:298-303. (Pubitemid 127469854)
36. Quenoille MH. Notes on bias in estimation. Biometrika 1956;43:353-360.
37. Metz CE, Pan X. "Proper" binormal ROC curves: Theory and maximum-likelihood estimation. J Math Psychol 1999;43:1-33.
38. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS. A contaminated binormal model for ROC data: Part II. A formal model. Acad Radiol 2000;7:427-437. (Pubitemid 30341575)
39. Metz CE. Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. Invest Radiol 1989;24:234-245. (Pubitemid 19084791)
40. Ikezoe J, Kohno N, Kido S, Takeuchi N, Johkoh T, Arisawa J, Kozuka T. Interpretation of subtle interstitial chest abnormalities: Conventional radiography versus high-resolution storage-phosphor radiography\A preliminary study. J Digit Imaging 1995;8(1 Suppl 1):31-36.