Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the detection of interstitial lung abnormalities on video display workstation monitors between radiologists experienced with video image interpretation and radiologists who lack this experience. Twenty-four patients with interstitial lung abnormalities documented by high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) and lung biopsy, and 26 control patients with no history of pulmonary disease or a normal HRCT and normal chest radiographs were studied. Images were acquired using storage phosphor digital radiography and displayed on 1,640×2,048 pixel resolution video monitors. Five board-certified radiologists evaluated the images in a blinded and randomized manner by using a six-point presence of abnormality grading scale. Three radiologists were from 1 to 4 years out of residency and considered to be experienced workstation monitor readers with between 1 to 3 years of video monitor image interpretation. For the inexperienced readers, one radiologist had no prior experience with reading images from a video monitor and was direct out of residency, and the other radiologist had less than 4 months of intermittent exposure and was 1 year out of residency. Sensitivity and specificity were determined for individual readers. Positive predictive values, negative predictive values, accuracy, and receiver-operating curves were alsoggenerated. A comparison was made between experienced and inexperienced readers. For readers experienced with video monitor image interpretation, the sensitivity ranged from 87.5% to 92%, specificity from 69% to 92%, positive predictive value (PPV) from 73% to 87.5%, negative predictive value (NPV) from 87% to 90%, and accuracy from 80% to 88%. For inexperienced readers, these values were sensitivity 58%, specificity 50% to 65% PPV 52% to 61%, NPV 56.5% to 63%, and accuracy 54% to 62%. Comparing image interpretation between experienced and inexperienced readers, there were statistically significant differences for sensitivity (P<.01), specificity (P<.01), PPV (P<.05), NPV (P<.05), accuracy (P<.05), and area under the receiver operator curve (Az) (P<.01). Within the respective experienced and inexperienced groups, no statistical significant differences were present. Our results show that digitally acquired chest radiographs displayed on high-resolution workstation monitors are adequate for the detection of interstitial lung abnormalities when the images are interpreted by radiologists experienced with video image interpretation. Radiologists inexperienced with video monitor image interpretation, however, cannot reliably interpret images for the detection of interstitial lung abnormalities.
Key words: picture archive and communication systems, computers, interstitial lung disease
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (862.6 KB).
Footnotes
The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as reflecting the views of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense.
References
- 1.Glazer HS, Muka E, Sagel SS, et al. New techniques in chest radiography. Radiol Clin North Am. 1994;32:711–729. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kido S, Ikezoe J, Takeuchi N, et al. Interpretation of subtle interstitial lung abnormalities: Conventional versus storage phosphor radiology. Radiology. 1993;187:527–533. doi: 10.1148/radiology.187.2.8475302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Schaefer CM, Greene R, Llewellyn HJ, et al. Interstitial lung disease: Impact of postprocessing in digital storage phosphor imaging. Radiology. 1991;178:733–738. doi: 10.1148/radiology.178.3.1994410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kondoh H, Ikezoe J, Inamura K, et al. A comparison of conventional screen-film radiography and hard copy of computed radiography in full and two-thirds sizes in detection of interstitial lung disease. J. Digit Imaging. 1994;7:193–195. doi: 10.1007/BF03168539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Goodman LR, Foley WD, Wilson CR, et al. Pneumothorax and other lung diseases: Effect of altered resolution and edge enhancement on diagnosis with digitalized radiographs. Radiology. 1988;167:83–88. doi: 10.1148/radiology.167.1.3347752. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Suddarth SA, Johnson GA, Sherrier RH, et al. Performance of high-resolution monitors for digital chest imaging. Med Phys. 1987;14:253–257. doi: 10.1118/1.596079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kundel HL. Visual perception and image display terminals. Radiol Clin North Am. 1986;24:69–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Datz FL, Baune DA, Christian PE. Redirection of client/server relationship of X window system as a simple, low cost, departmental picture archiving and communication system solution for nuclear medicine. J Digit Imaging. 1994;7:107–112. doi: 10.1007/BF03168503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Epler GR, McCloud TC, Gaensler EA, et al. Normal chest roentgenograms in chronic diffuse infiltrative lung disease. N Engl J Med. 1978;298:934–939. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197804272981703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Mori T, Nakata H. Irreversible data compression in chest imaging using computed radiography: An evaluation. J Thoracic Imaging. 1994;9:23–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]