Reporting requirements for skeletal digital radiography: comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy presentation

• Published in: Radiology Vol. 207; no. 1; p. 249
• Main Authors: O'Connor, P J, Davies, A G, Fowler, R C, Lintott, D J, Bury, R F, Parkin, G J, Martinez, D, Saifuddin, A, Cowen, A R
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.04.1998
• Subjects: Bone and Bones - diagnostic imaging; Hand - diagnostic imaging; Humans; Hyperparathyroidism - diagnostic imaging; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; Radiographic Image Enhancement; ROC Curve; X-Ray Intensifying Screens
• ISSN: 0033-8419
• DOI: 10.1148/radiology.207.1.9530323

To assess diagnostic performance and reader preference when reporting results from digital hard-copy and two soft-copy formats of skeletal digital radiography. The data comprised hand radiographs of patients undergoing renal dialysis. Normal hand radiographs obtained in trauma patients were assessed as control images. One hundred fifteen images acquired with a photostimulable-phosphor computed radiography system were analyzed. Image selection and initial assessment were by consensus of two experienced radiologists, who graded the radiographic changes of hyperparathyroidism with the Ritz scoring system. The images were then presented to four readers in three formats: hard-copy output and soft-copy presentations at 2K2 and 1K2 resolutions. These readers scored pathologic change and image preference. The results were analyzed with the receiver operating characteristic technique. There was a significant improvement in diagnostic performance for both soft-copy formats relative to the hard-copy format (P < .001). No significant difference in diagnostic performance was found between the two soft-copy formats. There was a significant preference for both soft-copy formats relative to the hard-copy format (P < .01), with the 2K2 soft-copy images preferred to the 1K2 images (P < .01). Soft-copy reporting can provide superior diagnostic performance even for images viewed at a modest (1K2) resolution. The lack of difference between the two soft-copy formats has important economic implications with respect to departmental hardware requirements.