Radiology, Vol 203, 207-209, Copyright © 1997 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Interpretation of CT scans with PACS image display in stack mode

AG Mathie and NH Strickland
Department of Medical Imaging, Hammersmith Hospital, London, England.

PURPOSE: To compare picture archiving and communication system (PACS) image display in so-called stack mode with conventional image display, tile mode, in efficacy of analysis of three-dimensional structure on computed tomographic (CT) scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A complex three- dimensional phantom composed of 20 entangled tubes was constructed and scanned. The resultant images were transferred to a PACS for analysis. Five experienced CT radiologists were asked to unravel the tubes by identifying their ends and to perform this task in both stack and tile modes. The time taken and any errors were recorded. RESULTS: All five radiologists performed considerably faster in stack mode than in tile mode; the speed varied by a factor of 3.2-5.7 times. The results of a paired t test showed this difference to be significant (P = .0002). Furthermore, no mistakes were made in stack mode, while two mistakes were made in tile mode. CONCLUSION: Stack mode facilitates analysis of three-dimensional structure depicted on CT scans.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. L. Weiss and C. P. Langlotz Structured Reporting: Patient Care Enhancement or Productivity Nightmare? Radiology, December 1, 2008; 249(3): 739 - 747. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. H. Kim, J. M. Lee, Y. J. Kim, J. Y. Choi, G. H. Kim, H. Y. Lee, and B. I. Choi Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma on CT in Liver Transplant Candidates: Comparison of PACS Tile and Multisynchronized Stack Modes Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2007; 188(5): 1337 - 1342. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. J. Kim, J. K. Han, S. H. Kim, J. Y. Jeong, S. K. An, C. J. Han, K.-R. Son, K. H. Lee, J. M. Lee, and B. I. Choi Small-Bowel Obstruction in a Phantom Model of ex Vivo Porcine Intestine: Comparison of PACS Stack and Tile Modes for CT Interpretation Radiology, September 1, 2005; 236(3): 867 - 871. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J G Cahir, A H Freeman, and H M Courtney Multislice CT of the abdomen Br. J. Radiol., December 1, 2004; 77(suppl_1): S64 - S73. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A. Haider Extending PowerPoint with DICOM Image Support RadioGraphics, November 1, 2003; 23(6): 1683 - 1687. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]

				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]

				D. R. Gale, M. E. Gale, R. K. Schwartz, V. V. Muse, and R. E. Walker An Automated PACS Workstation Interface: A Timesaving Enhancement Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2000; 174(1): 33 - 36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]