• P J Lund, E A Krupinski, S Pereles, and B Mockbee.
• Department of Radiology, Arizona Health Sciences Center, Tucson 85724, USA.
• Acad Radiol. 1997 Aug 1;4(8):570-6.

Rationale And ObjectivesReader performance and image quality wee assessed for standard film, computed film, and computer monitor radiography viewing formats in the evaluation of skeletal extremity trauma.Materials And MethodsThree radiologists and three orthopedic surgeons interpreted 27 skeletal radiographs obtained with equivalent technical parameters. Readers evaluated standard film, computed film, and computer monitor formats randomly for fracture and soft-tissue abnormalities. Sessions were videotaped, and eye motion was recorded.ResultsNo statistically significant differences were found between image formats for true-positive or false-positive findings of trauma indicators. Findings were classified as false-negative based on eye position fixation times. Search errors (lesion not fixated) accounted for 21.7%, 20.6% and 17.1% of false-negative errors with the computer monitor, computed film, and standard film formats, respectively. Combined recognition errors and decision errors were 78.3%, 79.4%, and 82.9%, respectively. Viewing times were longest for the computer monitor images (P < .001). Image quality, contrast, and sharpness were rated highest for computed radiographs (P = .001). Radiologists had a higher true-positive decision rate than orthopedic surgeons (P = .03).ConclusionNo statistically significant differences were seen in reader performance among viewing formats. The computed film format received the highest quality rating, and workstation viewing times were longest.

29 keywords...

hide…