Skeletal surveys for child abuse: Comparison of interpretation using digitized images and screen-film radiographs

被引:21
|
作者
Youmans, DC [1 ]
Don, S [1 ]
Hildebolt, C [1 ]
Shackelford, GD [1 ]
Luker, GD [1 ]
McAlister, WH [1 ]
机构
[1] Washington Univ, Sch Med, St Louis Childrens Hosp, Mallinckrodt Inst Radiol, St Louis, MO 63110 USA
关键词
D O I
10.2214/ajr.171.5.9798889
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to compare child abuse detection using screen-film radiographs and their digitized images displayed on a computer workstation. MATERIALS AND METHODS, Skeletal surveys of 20 consecutive child abuse patients whose abuse was clinically proven by a combination of history, physical and radiographic findings, and social work history, and 20 consecutive control subjects were evaluated. Three radiologists rated both the screen-film radiographs (400-speed, double-emulsion film) and their digitized images displayed on a workstation (2K x 2K resolution) using a six-point ordinal scale for suspicion of child abuse. fracture detection, and image quality. The rating response was analyzed using multiobserver-multicase receiver operating characteristic analysis of variance. The McNemar test was used to evaluate differences between imaging techniques and between diagnoses made using each imaging technique and clinically proven child abuse. RESULTS. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for screen-film radiographs was 0.934 =/- 0.025 and for digitized images was 0.922 +/- 0.013. This difference was not significant (p = .658); however, two observers significantly underestimated the child abuse diagnosis with digitized images (p = .02). In a review of the false-negative child abuse diagnoses, observers failed to recognize characteristic metaphyseal fractures (10 observations) and rib fractures (five observations) on digitized images that had been recognized on screen-film radiographs. Mean image quality was rated significantly lower (p < .0001) and interpretation time was significantly longer (75 sec; p < .001) for the digitized images than for screen-film radiographs. CONCLUSION. The characteristic types of fractures that were not identified on the digitized images, lower image quality, and longer interpretation time raise concern that digitized images may not be adequate for interpretation of suspected child abuse.
引用
收藏
页码:1415 / 1419
页数:5
相关论文
共 46 条
  • [1] Comparison of interpretation of digitized images and screen-film radiographs - Reply
    Don, S
    Youmans, DC
    Shackelford, GD
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1999, 173 (03) : 848 - 849
  • [2] Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography
    Liang, Zhigang
    Du, Xiangying
    Liu, Jiabin
    Yao, Xinyu
    Yang, Yanhui
    Li, Kuncheng
    ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2008, 49 (06) : 618 - 622
  • [3] DIGITIZED RADIOGRAPHS IN SKELETAL TRAUMA - A PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN A DIGITAL WORKSTATION AND THE ORIGINAL FILM IMAGES
    WILSON, AJ
    HODGE, JC
    RADIOLOGY, 1995, 196 (02) : 565 - 568
  • [4] Comparison of patient dose and noise with digital and screen-film chest radiographs
    Stone, RM
    Fletcher, G
    Reiker, GG
    Woodard, PK
    Sagel, SS
    Jost, RG
    RADIOLOGY, 1996, 201 : 689 - 689
  • [5] Comparison of computerized image analyses for digitized screen-film mammograms and full-field digital mammography images
    Li, Hui
    Giger, Maryellen L.
    Yuan, Yading
    Lan, Li
    Suzuki, Kenji
    Jamieson, Andrew
    Yarusso, Laura
    Nishikawa, Robert M.
    Sennett, Charlene
    DIGITAL MAMOGRAPHY, PROCEEDINGS, 2006, 4046 : 569 - 575
  • [6] ORAL CHOLECYSTOGRAPHY - COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL SCREEN-FILM WITH PHOTOSTIMULABLE IMAGING PLATE RADIOGRAPHS
    SRIVASTAVA, DN
    KULSHRESTHA, A
    GUJRAL, RB
    PHADKE, RV
    GASTROINTESTINAL RADIOLOGY, 1991, 16 (01): : 49 - 52
  • [7] INTRAOPERATIVE ARTERIOGRAPHY - COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL SCREEN-FILM WITH PHOTOSTIMULABLE IMAGING PLATE RADIOGRAPHS
    POND, GD
    SEELEY, GW
    OVITT, TW
    CHERNIN, MM
    YOSHINO, MT
    ROEHRIG, H
    MCINTYRE, KE
    RADIOLOGY, 1989, 170 (02) : 367 - 370
  • [8] Digital and screen-film mammography: Comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times
    Berns, EA
    Hendrick, RE
    Solari, M
    Barke, L
    Reddy, D
    Wolfman, J
    Segal, L
    DeLeon, P
    Benjamin, S
    Willis, L
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2006, 187 (01) : 38 - 41
  • [9] Comparison of time required to interpret chest images with a diagnostic workstation in a PACS system versus screen-film chest radiographs
    Hartman, TE
    Aughenbaugh, GL
    Harms, GF
    King, BF
    RADIOLOGY, 1996, 201 : 1467 - 1467
  • [10] CLINICAL COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL AND RARE-EARTH SCREEN-FILM SYSTEMS FOR CEPHALOMETRIC RADIOGRAPHS
    KAUGARS, GE
    FATOUROS, P
    ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTICS, 1982, 53 (03): : 322 - 325