Abstract
In the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, radiographs of the hands and knees were taken of participants 60 years and older as part of the study of arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions. The purpose of the study was to decide the digitizing resolution to be used for these radiographs. A set of wrist and hand radiographs (N=49) was graded by two radiologists for degree of bone erosions and served as a “gold standard.” The radiographs were then digitized at three resolution levels; low-resolution 150μm (2001×1634×12 bit matrix); intermediate-resolution 100 μm (3000×2400×12 bit matrix); and high-resolution 50 μm (4900×3000×12 bit matrix). A comparison of the digital images versus the gold standard reading was made at the three resolutions by two radiologists. Kappa statistics suggested fair (K>.4) to excellent (K>.75) agreement between the gold standard and the images at all levels. Intraclass correlation coefficient suggested high agreement between readers (ICC>.5), with minimal individual reader effect. Variance component estimates showed that the major contribution (78–83%) to scoring came from variability in the images themselves, not from the readers. The 100μm resolution was selected over the 150 and 50 μm on the basis of practical considerations such as storage requirements, display time, and easier manipulation of the digital images by the readers.
Key words: NHANES III, radiograph, hand, digital resolution
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1,009.4 KB).
References
- 1.Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–94, Plan and Operations Procedures Manuals (CD-ROM) Hyattsville, MD: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Jonsson A, Borg A, Hannesson P, et al. Film-screen vs. digital radiography in rheumatoid arthritis of the hand an ROC analysis. Acta Radiologica. 1994;35:311–318. doi: 10.3109/02841859409173296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Sayre J, Aberle DR, Boechat MI, et al. Effect of data compression on diagnostic accuracy in digital hand and chest radiography. Proc SPIE. 1992;1653:232–240. doi: 10.1117/12.59528. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Puente A, Knowler WC, Pettitt DJ, et al. High incidence and prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in Pima Indians. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;129:1170–1178. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Jacobsson LTH, Knowler WC, Pillemer SR, et al. A cross-sectional and longitudinal comparison of the Rome criteria for active rheumatoid arthritis (equivalent to the American College of Rheumatology 1958 criteria) and the American College of Rheumatology 1987 criteria for rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1994;37:1479–1486. doi: 10.1002/art.1780371011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Atlas of Standard Radiographs of Arthritis. Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis Company; 1963. The Epidemiology of Chronic Rheumatism, Volume II. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley; 1981. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin. 1979;86:420–428. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.SAS/STAT User’s Guide (vol 2) Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 1990. pp. 1661–1673. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Shavelson RJ, Webb NM. Generalizability Theory: A Primer. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991. [Google Scholar]