Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 336–340 | Cite as

Comparison of a PACS workstation with conventional film for interpretation of neonatal examinations: a paired comparison study

  • E. A. FrankenJr.
  • W. L. Smith
  • K. S. Berbaum
  • S. C. S. Kao
  • Y. Sato
Originals

Abstract

The diagnostic value of neonatal examinations using picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) was compared with that of conventional radiographs. A total of 202 consecutive chest or abdominal radiographs from the newborn intensive care unit were digitized for display on a commercially available PACS console. Experimental design was a paired comparison study. Plain films and PACS images were reviewed alternately in unbiased fashion. After the examination was evaluated using the second modality, any change in diagnosis or confidence in diagnosis was noted. Overall evaluation showed slight preference for the PACS modality. Change of diagnosis or in confidence of diagnosis was more than twice as likely to occur with evaluation of PACS (35%) after hadcopy than with evaluation of conventional radiographs (14%) after PACS. Of the variety of image processing features available on PACS, only window and leveling were judged to be of significant value. These results indicate that PACS and conventional radiographs of the neonatal chest and abdomen are of similar diagnostic value.

Keywords

Intensive Care Unit Plain Film Processing Feature Picture Archive Conventional Radiograph 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fechner GT (1860) Element der Psychophysik. Breitkopf & Harterl, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weber EH (1934) De pulsu, resorpitione, auditu et tactu: annotationes anatomicae et physiologicae. Koehler, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Swets JA, Pickett RM (1982) Evaluation of diagnostic systems. Academic Press, New York, p 140Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gescheider GA (1985) Psychophysics: method, theory, and application, 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillside, NJ, p 135Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruning, JL, Kintz BL (1977) Computational handbook of statistics, 2nd edn. Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL, p 222Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tira RK, Mankovich NJ, Huang HK (1988) One year experience with a PACS module in pediatric radiology: system viewpoint. Proceedings of the SPIE (The International Society of Optical Engineering), Medical Imaging II Conference, Newport Beach, CAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ho BK, Morioka C, Mankovich NJ, Stewart BK, Huang HK (1987) Image acquisition for the pediatric PACS module. Proceedings of the SPIE, Medical Imaging, February 1–6, Newport Beach, CA, Vol 767, p 554Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang HK, Bassett LW, Mankovich NJ, Cho PS, Kangarloo H, Seeger L (1987) Instruction in image processing for residents in diagnostic radiology. AJR 149: 435PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seeley GW, Fisher HD, Stempski MO, Borgstrom M, Bjelland J, Capp MP (1987) Total digital radiology department: spatial resolution requirements. AJR 148: 421PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Seeley GW, Fajardo LL, Ker M, Pond GD, Vellanki S, Hunt R, Boyle R, Yoshino M (1989) Evaluation of the DuPont Teleradiology System. SPIE 1093: 106Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kundel HL (1986) Visual perception and image display terminals. Radiol Clin North Am 24: 69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Warren RC, Pandya YV (1982) Effect of window width and viewing distance in CT display. Br J Radiol 55: 72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ishida M, Doi K, Loo N, Metz CE, Lehr (1984) Digital image processing: effect on detectability of simulated low-contrast radiographic patterns. Radiology 150: 569PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goodenough DJ (1976) Assessment of image quality of diagnostic imaging systems. In: Hay GA (eds) Medical images: formation, perception and measurement. Institute of Physics and John Wiley & Sons, London, p 263Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Warren RC (1984) Detectability of low-contrast features in computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 29: 1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Judy PF, Swensson RG, Szulc M (1981) Lesion detection and signal-to-noise ratio in CT images. Med Phys 8: 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Judy PF, Swensson RG (1985) Detectability of lesions of various sizes on CT images. Soc Phono-Optical Instrument Eng 535: 38Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Judy PF, Swensson RG (1985) Detection of small focal lesions in CT images: effects of reconstruction filters and visual display windows. Br J Radiol 58: 137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seltzer SE, Swensson RG, Judy PF, Nawfel RD (1988) Size discrimination in computed tomographic images: effects of feature contrast and display window. Invest Radiol 23: 455PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Metz CE, Chan H, Doi K, Shen J (1989) Contrast enhancement of noisy images by windowing: limitations due to the finite dynamic range of the display system. Med Phys 16: 170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fraser RG, Sanders C, Barnes GT, MacMahon H, Giger ML, Doi K, Templeton AW, Cox GG, Dwyer S, Merritt CRB, Jones JP (1989) Digital imaging of the chest. Radiology 171: 297PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. A. FrankenJr.
    • 1
  • W. L. Smith
    • 1
  • K. S. Berbaum
    • 1
  • S. C. S. Kao
    • 1
  • Y. Sato
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyThe University of Iowa College of MedicineIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations