| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1
Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N.
Wolfe St., Baltimore, MD 21287.
2
Department of Emergency Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine,
Baltimore, MD 21287.
3
Present address: Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh School
of Medicine, 3550 Terrace St., Pittsburgh, PA 15213.
4
Present address: Department of Orthopedics, University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey Medical School, 185 S. Orange Ave.,
Newark, NJ 07103.
OBJECTIVE. We determined the relative value of teleradiology and radiology resident coverage of the emergency department by measuring and comparing the effects of physician specialty, training level, and image display method on accuracy of radiograph interpretation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. A sample of four faculty emergency medicine physicians, four emergency medicine residents, four faculty radiologists, and four radiology residents participated in our study. Each physician interpreted 120 radiographs, approximately half containing a clinically important index finding. Radiographs were interpreted using the original films and high-resolution digital monitors. Accuracy of radiograph interpretation was measured as the area under the physicians' receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
RESULTS. The area under the ROC curve was 0.15 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10-0.20) greater for radiologists than for emergency medicine physicians, 0.07 (95% CI, 0.02-0.12) greater for faculty than for residents, and 0.07 (95% CI, 0.02-0.12) greater for films than for video monitors. Using these results, we estimated that teleradiology coverage by faculty radiologists would add 0.09 (95% CI, 0.03-0.15) to the area under the ROC curve for radiograph interpretation by emergency medicine faculty alone, and radiology resident coverage would add 0.08 (95% CI, 0.02-0.14) to this area.
CONCLUSION. We observed significant differences between the interpretation of radiographs on film and on digital monitors. However, we observed differences of equal or greater magnitude associated with the training level and physician specialty of each observer. In evaluating teleradiology services, observer characteristics must be considered in addition to the quality of image display.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  References J. ICRU, April 1, 2008; 8(1): 57 - 62. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Lester, T. Durazzo, A. Kaye, M. Ahl, and H. P. Forman Referring Physicians' Attitudes Toward International Interpretation of Teleradiology Images Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2007; 188(1): W1 - W8. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Samei AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Technological and Psychophysical Considerations for Digital Mammographic Displays RadioGraphics, March 1, 2005; 25(2): 491 - 501. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Monnier-Cholley, F. Carrat, B. P. Cholley, J.-M. Tubiana, and L. Arrive Detection of Lung Cancer on Radiographs: Receiver Operating Characteristic Analyses of Radiologists', Pulmonologists', and Anesthesiologists' Performance Radiology, December 1, 2004; 233(3): 799 - 805. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Kalyanpur, V. P. Neklesa, D. T. Pham, H. P. Forman, S. T. Stein, and J. A. Brink Implementation of an International Teleradiology Staffing Model Radiology, August 1, 2004; 232(2): 415 - 419. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. D. Saketkhoo, M. Bhargavan, J. H. Sunshine, and H. P. Forman Emergency Department Image Interpretation Services at Private Community Hospitals Radiology, April 1, 2004; 231(1): 190 - 197. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. L. Posner and P. R. Freund Resident Training Level and Quality of Anesthesia Care in a University Hospital Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2004; 98(2): 437 - 442. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K R Flaherty, E L Thwaite, E A Kazerooni, B H Gross, G B Toews, T V Colby, W D Travis, J A Mumford, S Murray, A Flint, et al. Radiological versus histological diagnosis in UIP and NSIP: survival implications Thorax, February 1, 2003; 58(2): 143 - 148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. E. Kouri, R. G. Parsons, and H. R. Alpert Physician Self-Referral for Diagnostic Imaging: Review of the Empiric Literature Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2002; 179(4): 843 - 850. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. S. Medina, R. R. Richardson, and K. Crone Children with Suspected Craniosynostosis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Diagnostic Strategies Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2002; 179(1): 215 - 221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. L. Kundel, M. Polansky, M. K. Dalinka, R. H. Choplin, W. B. Gefter, J. B. Kneelend, W. T. Miller Sr., and W. T. Miller Jr. Reliability of Soft-Copy Versus Hard-Copy Interpretation of Emergency Department Radiographs: A Prototype Study Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2001; 177(3): 525 - 528. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. F. Rogers Heeding the Call: Radiologists in the ED (Emergency Department) Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2000; 175(5): 1213 - 1213. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
