Accuracy of interpretation of CT scans: comparing PACS monitor displays and hard-copy images.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to determine the relative diagnostic accuracy of radiologists in the interpretation of CT scans using a computer workstation in comparison with using film. MATERIALS AND METHODS Four board-certified radiologists with extensive soft-copy experience interpreted 117 CT scans in four anatomic regions using films displayed on an alternator and images displayed on a four-monitor workstation. The radiologists were asked to interpret the scans in their usual fashion and were aware that both the time required to review the study and the accuracy of the reports were being assessed. The radiologists' diagnostic impressions were compared with those of a consensus panel and scored for accuracy. RESULTS Soft-copy interpretation using computer workstations was found to produce statistically significant improvement in combined measurements of sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy for chest, brain, and chest-abdominal CT scans compared with film interpretation. CONCLUSION PACS (picture archiving and communication system) offers radiologists the potential for improved accuracy in CT interpretation compared with traditional film-based interpretation.

[1]  L L Berland,et al.  CT of bowel obstruction: interpretation using cine-paging. , 1995, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  H. Kundel,et al.  Reliability of soft-copy versus hard-copy interpretation of emergency department radiographs: a prototype study. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  R. Gonzalez,et al.  Acute stroke: improved nonenhanced CT detection--benefits of soft-copy interpretation by using variable window width and center level settings. , 1999, Radiology.

[4]  J R Perry,et al.  Interpretation of CT studies: single-screen workstation versus film alternator. , 1993, Radiology.

[5]  J W Burnett,et al.  Teledermatology and in-person examinations: a comparison of patient and physician perceptions and diagnostic agreement. , 1998, Archives of dermatology.

[6]  B A Carroll,et al.  PACS in sonography: accuracy of interpretation using film compared with monitor display. Picture archiving and communication systems. , 1999, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  E L Siegel,et al.  Radiologists' productivity in the interpretation of CT scans: a comparison of PACS with conventional film. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  D Gur,et al.  Primary CT diagnosis of abdominal masses in a PACS environment. , 1991, Radiology.

[9]  K S Berbaum,et al.  Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of PACS. , 1991, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  J R Perry,et al.  Interpretation time of serial chest CT examinations with stacked-metaphor workstation versus film alternator. , 1995, Radiology.

[11]  K S Berbaum,et al.  Evaluation of a PACS workstation for assessment of body CT studies. , 1990, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[12]  T Ishigaki,et al.  Clinical evaluation of newly developed CRT viewing station: CT reading and observer's performance. , 1995, Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society.

[13]  C. White,et al.  Liver and bone window settings for soft-copy interpretation of chest and abdominal CT. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  N H Strickland,et al.  Interpretation of CT scans with PACS image display in stack mode. , 1997, Radiology.

[15]  W D Foley,et al.  Display of CT studies on a two-screen electronic workstation versus a film panel alternator: sensitivity and efficiency among radiologists. , 1990, Radiology.