[Image quality of paper prints compared to film copies in CT investigations]

Can paper replace laser film to communicate the results of wrist radiographs in trauma cases? A reproducibility study of the reading of wrist trauma case radiographs on a PACS workstation, laser film, and paper

The main goal of this study was to determine the reproducibility of the reading of wrist trauma case radiographs using three different media: laser film, a picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) workstation, and paper with an optimized layout. The study was conducted retrospectively in 200 consecutive patients consulting at the emergency department for wrist trauma and who underwent wrist X-ray investigation using a computed radiography system. There were 82 men and 118 women. The mean age was 48.3 years (16-95 years). Our institutional review board does not require patient approval or informed consent for retrospective review of case records. The readings were made by two independent readers who analyzed the 200 patient radiographs consecutively in one session for each type of media: paper, laser film, and on a PACS dual-screen workstation. The inter-reader agreements were substantial or almost perfect, with kappa values of 0.83 (0.76-0.90) for the PACS, 0.83 (0.76-0.90) for film, and 0.80 (0.72-0.87) for paper. The inter-technique agreement was almost perfect in all cases. There is a high interobserver agreement between PACS, laser film, and paper readings for wrist trauma cases. With a layout of one radiograph on each sheet, paper could replace laser films to communicate the results of wrist radiographs in trauma cases for outpatients.

Using Receiver Operating Characteristic Methodology to Evaluate the Diagnostic Quality of Radiography on Paper Prints Versus Film

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic quality of paper prints with film copies in a sample of observers who were trying to detect small coin lesions on radiographs of a phantom.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The phantom consisted of 60 high-contrast and 60 low-contrast test objects, half of which had holes in them. Diameter and depth of the holes varied from 0.5 mm to 2 mm. Fifteen radiographs were obtained from different areas of the test objects. Film copies and paper prints were made using high-quality printers. Five observers independently evaluated 1,800 high-contrast and 1,800 low-contrast images. Data were evaluated using the well-established receiver operating characteristic methodology.

RESULTS

The mean area under the curve rated 0.863 for paper prints (0.859 for high contrast and 0.860 for low contrast) and 0.926 for laser films (0.937 for high contrast and 0.913 for low contrast). The difference between the two imaging techniques was statistically significant for both high- and low-contrast lesions (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Detection of small coin lesions on radiographs of a phantom was significantly less sensitive on paper prints than on film. We found paper prints less acceptable for the diagnosis of small-sized lesions.