Interpretation of emergency department radiographs: A comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty, and film with digital display

J. Eng, W. K. Mysko, G. E.R. Weller, R. Renard, J. N. Gitlin, D. A. Bluemke, D. Magid, G. D. Kelen, Jr Scott

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

94 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. We determined the relative value of teleradiology and radiology resident coverage of the emergency department by measuring and comparing the effects of physician specialty, training level, and image display method on accuracy of radiograph interpretation. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A sample of four faculty emergency medicine physicians, four emergency medicine residents, four faculty radiologists, and four radiology residents participated in our study. Each physician interpreted 120 radiographs, approximately half containing a clinically important index finding. Radiographs were interpreted using the original films and high-resolution digital monitors. Accuracy of radiograph interpretation was measured as the area under the physicians' receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS. The area under the ROC curve was 0.15 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10-0.20) greater for radiologists than for emergency medicine physicians, 0.07 (95% CI, 0.02-0.12) greater for faculty than for residents, and 0.07 (95% CI, 0.02-0.12) greater for films than for video monitors. Using these results, we estimated that teleradiology coverage by faculty radiologists would add 0.09 (95% CI, 0.03-0.15) to the area under the ROC curve for radiograph interpretation by emergency medicine faculty alone, and radiology resident coverage would add 0.08 (95% CI, 0.02-0.14) to this area. CONCLUSION. We observed significant differences between the interpretation of radiographs on film and on digital monitors. However, we observed differences of equal or greater magnitude associated with the training level and physician specialty of each observer. In evaluating teleradiology services, observer characteristics must be considered in addition to the quality of image display.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1233-1238
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
Volume175
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2000

Fingerprint

Emergency Medicine
Hospital Emergency Service
Teleradiology
Physicians
Confidence Intervals
Radiology
ROC Curve
Radiologists

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Eng, J. ; Mysko, W. K. ; Weller, G. E.R. ; Renard, R. ; Gitlin, J. N. ; Bluemke, D. A. ; Magid, D. ; Kelen, G. D. ; Scott, Jr. / Interpretation of emergency department radiographs : A comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty, and film with digital display. In: American Journal of Roentgenology. 2000 ; Vol. 175, No. 5. pp. 1233-1238.
@article{6a96b01f67a9415388a7aa08e6f742b8,
title = "Interpretation of emergency department radiographs: A comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty, and film with digital display",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE. We determined the relative value of teleradiology and radiology resident coverage of the emergency department by measuring and comparing the effects of physician specialty, training level, and image display method on accuracy of radiograph interpretation. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A sample of four faculty emergency medicine physicians, four emergency medicine residents, four faculty radiologists, and four radiology residents participated in our study. Each physician interpreted 120 radiographs, approximately half containing a clinically important index finding. Radiographs were interpreted using the original films and high-resolution digital monitors. Accuracy of radiograph interpretation was measured as the area under the physicians' receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS. The area under the ROC curve was 0.15 (95{\%} confidence interval [CI], 0.10-0.20) greater for radiologists than for emergency medicine physicians, 0.07 (95{\%} CI, 0.02-0.12) greater for faculty than for residents, and 0.07 (95{\%} CI, 0.02-0.12) greater for films than for video monitors. Using these results, we estimated that teleradiology coverage by faculty radiologists would add 0.09 (95{\%} CI, 0.03-0.15) to the area under the ROC curve for radiograph interpretation by emergency medicine faculty alone, and radiology resident coverage would add 0.08 (95{\%} CI, 0.02-0.14) to this area. CONCLUSION. We observed significant differences between the interpretation of radiographs on film and on digital monitors. However, we observed differences of equal or greater magnitude associated with the training level and physician specialty of each observer. In evaluating teleradiology services, observer characteristics must be considered in addition to the quality of image display.",
author = "J. Eng and Mysko, {W. K.} and Weller, {G. E.R.} and R. Renard and Gitlin, {J. N.} and Bluemke, {D. A.} and D. Magid and Kelen, {G. D.} and Jr Scott",
year = "2000",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2214/ajr.175.5.1751233",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "175",
pages = "1233--1238",
journal = "American Journal of Roentgenology",
issn = "0361-803X",
publisher = "American Roentgen Ray Society",
number = "5",

}

Interpretation of emergency department radiographs : A comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty, and film with digital display. / Eng, J.; Mysko, W. K.; Weller, G. E.R.; Renard, R.; Gitlin, J. N.; Bluemke, D. A.; Magid, D.; Kelen, G. D.; Scott, Jr.

In: American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 175, No. 5, 01.01.2000, p. 1233-1238.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interpretation of emergency department radiographs

T2 - A comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty, and film with digital display

AU - Eng, J.

AU - Mysko, W. K.

AU - Weller, G. E.R.

AU - Renard, R.

AU - Gitlin, J. N.

AU - Bluemke, D. A.

AU - Magid, D.

AU - Kelen, G. D.

AU - Scott, Jr

PY - 2000/1/1

Y1 - 2000/1/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE. We determined the relative value of teleradiology and radiology resident coverage of the emergency department by measuring and comparing the effects of physician specialty, training level, and image display method on accuracy of radiograph interpretation. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A sample of four faculty emergency medicine physicians, four emergency medicine residents, four faculty radiologists, and four radiology residents participated in our study. Each physician interpreted 120 radiographs, approximately half containing a clinically important index finding. Radiographs were interpreted using the original films and high-resolution digital monitors. Accuracy of radiograph interpretation was measured as the area under the physicians' receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS. The area under the ROC curve was 0.15 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10-0.20) greater for radiologists than for emergency medicine physicians, 0.07 (95% CI, 0.02-0.12) greater for faculty than for residents, and 0.07 (95% CI, 0.02-0.12) greater for films than for video monitors. Using these results, we estimated that teleradiology coverage by faculty radiologists would add 0.09 (95% CI, 0.03-0.15) to the area under the ROC curve for radiograph interpretation by emergency medicine faculty alone, and radiology resident coverage would add 0.08 (95% CI, 0.02-0.14) to this area. CONCLUSION. We observed significant differences between the interpretation of radiographs on film and on digital monitors. However, we observed differences of equal or greater magnitude associated with the training level and physician specialty of each observer. In evaluating teleradiology services, observer characteristics must be considered in addition to the quality of image display.

AB - OBJECTIVE. We determined the relative value of teleradiology and radiology resident coverage of the emergency department by measuring and comparing the effects of physician specialty, training level, and image display method on accuracy of radiograph interpretation. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A sample of four faculty emergency medicine physicians, four emergency medicine residents, four faculty radiologists, and four radiology residents participated in our study. Each physician interpreted 120 radiographs, approximately half containing a clinically important index finding. Radiographs were interpreted using the original films and high-resolution digital monitors. Accuracy of radiograph interpretation was measured as the area under the physicians' receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS. The area under the ROC curve was 0.15 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10-0.20) greater for radiologists than for emergency medicine physicians, 0.07 (95% CI, 0.02-0.12) greater for faculty than for residents, and 0.07 (95% CI, 0.02-0.12) greater for films than for video monitors. Using these results, we estimated that teleradiology coverage by faculty radiologists would add 0.09 (95% CI, 0.03-0.15) to the area under the ROC curve for radiograph interpretation by emergency medicine faculty alone, and radiology resident coverage would add 0.08 (95% CI, 0.02-0.14) to this area. CONCLUSION. We observed significant differences between the interpretation of radiographs on film and on digital monitors. However, we observed differences of equal or greater magnitude associated with the training level and physician specialty of each observer. In evaluating teleradiology services, observer characteristics must be considered in addition to the quality of image display.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033755001&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033755001&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2214/ajr.175.5.1751233

DO - 10.2214/ajr.175.5.1751233

M3 - Article

C2 - 11044013

AN - SCOPUS:0033755001

VL - 175

SP - 1233

EP - 1238

JO - American Journal of Roentgenology

JF - American Journal of Roentgenology

SN - 0361-803X

IS - 5

ER -