-
Investigative radiology · Aug 1993
Comparative StudyComparative evaluation of digital radiography versus conventional radiography of fractured skulls.
- H J Langen, H M Klein, B Wein, A Stargardt, and R W Günther.
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Technology Aachen, Federal Republic of Germany.
- Invest Radiol. 1993 Aug 1; 28 (8): 686-9.
ObjectivesThe authors assessed the relative efficacy of conventional and digital storage-phosphor radiographs for the detection of skull fractures.MethodsFifty conventional film-screen radiographs (FSR) and 50 digital storage-phosphor radiographs (DR) with 66 fractures were compared. Five radiologists evaluated image quality and fracture detectability. The results were analyzed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.ResultsWith a standard exposure, the ability to evaluate skull fractures was equally good with either technique (ROC area for DR, 0.8954; for FSR, 0.8870). Digital radiography was superior in evaluating nasal bone. For petrosal bone, the DR image simulates an underexposure. This disadvantage compared with FSR can be compensated by image postprocessing.ConclusionIn evaluation of skull fractures, radiologists performance with DR is equivalent to FSR.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*,_underline_or**bold**. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>and subscript<sub>text</sub>. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3., hyphens-or asterisks*. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com) - Images can be included with:
 - For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote..