Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Beard, D. V.
Right arrow Articles by Zito, A. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Beard, D. V.
Right arrow Articles by Zito, A. J.

Radiology, Vol 187, 565-569, Copyright © 1993 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Interpretation of CT studies: single-screen workstation versus film alternator

DV Beard, BM Hemminger, JR Perry, MA Mauro, KE Muller, DM Warshauer, MA Smith and AJ Zito
Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599-7510.

A prototype single-screen workstation with a 2,048 x 2,560-pixel high- brightness monitor, 0.11-second image display time, and simple ergonomic design was compared to a conventional horizontal film alternator in diagnostic interpretation of chest computed tomography (CT) studies. Four radiologists used either the workstation or film alternator in interpretation of studies obtained in 10 patients. A counterbalanced within-subject repeated measures experimental design was used. Response times were analyzed for both methods of interpretation. Grades of excellent, acceptable, and unacceptable were assigned by a blinded "grader" to reports of the radiologists. The average time needed for an interpretation at the workstation was 5.65 minutes. No interpretations were graded unacceptable. Retrospective power analysis showed that 16 observers rather than four would have been required to show that use of the workstation was faster than the alternator. With this 95% confidence interval, the workstation interpretation time is clinically equivalent to that with the alternator. These data show that this type of workstation has practical application in interpretation of CT, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound studies.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
B. I. Reiner, E. L. Siegel, and F. J. Hooper
Accuracy of Interpretation of CT Scans: Comparing PACS Monitor Displays and Hard-Copy Images
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2002; 179(6): 1407 - 1410.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
B. I. Reiner, E. L. Siegel, F. J. Hooper, S. Pomerantz, A. Dahlke, and D. Rallis
Radiologists' Productivity in the Interpretation of CT Scans: A Comparison of PACS with Conventional Film
Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2001; 176(4): 861 - 864.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1993 by the Radiological Society of North America.