BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

British Journal of Radiology (2005) 78, 993-996
© 2005 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/30262671

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pudas, T
Right arrow Articles by Alanen, A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pudas, T
Right arrow Articles by Alanen, A

Full Paper

Influence of film digitization on radiological interpretation

T Pudas, MD 1 L Korsoff, MD 1 T Kallio, MD, PhD 1 M Uhari, MD, PhD 2 and A Alanen, MD, PhD 1

1 Turku University Central Hospital, PL52, 20521 Turku, Finland and 2 University of Oulu, Department of Pediatrics, 90014 Oulu, Finland

Correspondence: Tomi Pudas, Kiinamyllynkatu 4-8 20520 Turku, Finland

Our objective was to evaluate the influence of changing from analogue to digital imaging on interobserver and intraobserver image interpretation. Three radiologists interpreted 96 three image series of occipitomental radiographs of paranasal sinuses from the films and from the corresponding digitized images from the screen. Images were classified according to degree of abnormality as either normal, with mucosal thickening of less than 5 mm, with mucosal thickening of 5 mm or more, total opacity, air–fluid level or polyp or cyst of maxillary sinuses. In the present study we found that there were more differences between two radiologist's interpretations with a single method than in a single radiologist's interpretations between the methods, although radiologists interpreted fewer pathological findings from the digitized images than from the corresponding films. Our data show that the results of image interpretation are preferentially dependent on the reader rather than on the method of reading.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2005 by the British Institute of Radiology.