Radiology, Vol 195, 223-229, Copyright © 1995 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Interpretation of emergency department radiographs by radiologists and emergency medicine physicians: teleradiology workstation versus radiograph readings

WW Scott Jr, DA Bluemke, WK Mysko, GE Weller, GD Kelen, RL Reichle, JC Weller and JN Gitlin
Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD 21287.

PURPOSE: To compare accuracy of interpretation by radiologists and emergency medicine physicians of conventional radiographs and digitized images on a workstation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One author selected 120 radiographs from the radiology department library, including 62 musculoskeletal, 20 abdominal, and 38 chest examinations. Analog radiographs were digitized. There were 60 positive and 60 control cases. Positive cases demonstrated clinically important disease and had a high degree of diagnostic difficulty. Thirty-one cases were judged to be critical to the patient's immediate care, requiring prompt accurate interpretation. Four groups of readers were used: staff radiologists and emergency medicine physicians and second-year radiology and emergency medicine residents. RESULTS: All reader groups performed better when interpreting conventional radiographs than digitized images. Differences in favor of radiograph reading were statistically significant for overall accuracy related to all cases and to critical cases (P < .05, one-tailed test). CONCLUSION: Results with the teleradiology system were found unacceptable for primary interpretation of the spectrum of radiographs seen in an emergency department.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				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]

				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]

				J. Eng, W. K. Mysko, G. E. R. Weller, R. Renard, J. N. Gitlin, D. A. Bluemke, D. Magid, G. D. Kelen, and W. W. Scott Jr. Interpretation of Emergency Department Radiographs: A Comparison of Emergency Medicine Physicians with Radiologists, Residents with Faculty, and Film with Digital Display Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2000; 175(5): 1233 - 1238. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Moskowitz, J. Sunshine, D. Grossman, L. Adams, and L. Gelinas The Effect of Imaging Guidelines on the Number and Quality of Outpatient Radiographic Examinations Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2000; 175(1): 9 - 15. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. C. Levin, L. Parker, J. H. Sunshine, G. Busheé, and C. R. B. Merritt Role of Emergency Medicine Physicians in US Performed in Patients in the Emergency Department: How Substantial Is Their Participation? Radiology, July 1, 2000; 216(1): 265 - 268. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				J. Benger A review of telemedicine in accident and emergency: the story so far Emerg. Med. J., May 1, 2000; 17(3): 157 - 164. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				J. A Espinosa and T. W Nolan Reducing errors made by emergency physicians in interpreting radiographs: longitudinal study BMJ, March 18, 2000; 320(7237): 737 - 740. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				P. M. Schlag, K. T. Moesta, S. Rakovsky, and G. Graschew Telemedicine: The New Must for Surgery Arch Surg, November 1, 1999; 134(11): 1216 - 1221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]