Evaluation of a PACS Workstation for Assessment of Body CT Studies

Berbaum, Kevin S.; Franken, Edmund A.; Honda, Hiroshi; McGuire, Charles W.; Weis, R.R.; Barloon, Thomas J.

doi:10.1097/00004728-199009000-00042

Cited by 18 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Large international research collectives such as PRIMAGE, with access to adequate big data sets, are pursuing deep machine learning that could facilitate personalized imaging biomarkers [ 88 ]. We consider these efforts as highly promising, despite earlier research in computer-aided radiology that suggested computer-aided detection had not substantially improved the incidence of human error [ 44 , 89 – 92 ], and are looking forward to further validation. For the present, at least, imaging interpretation relies on human expertise; and, reader variability remains an unavoidable reality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiologists and Clinical Trials: Part 1 The Truth About Reader Disagreements

Schmid

Raunig

Miller³

et al. 2021

Ther Innov Regul Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debate over human visual perception and how medical images should be interpreted have persisted since X-rays were the only imaging technique available. Concerns over rates of disagreement between expert image readers are associated with much of the clinical research and at times driven by the belief that any image endpoint variability is problematic. The deeper understanding of the reasons, value, and risk of disagreement are somewhat siloed, leading, at times, to costly and risky approaches, especially in clinical trials. Although artificial intelligence promises some relief from mistakes, its routine application for assessing tumors within cancer trials is still an aspiration. Our consortium of international experts in medical imaging for drug development research, the Pharma Imaging Network for Therapeutics and Diagnostics (PINTAD), tapped the collective knowledge of its members to ground expectations, summarize common reasons for reader discordance, identify what factors can be controlled and which actions are likely to be effective in reducing discordance. Reinforced by an exhaustive literature review, our work defines the forces that shape reader variability. This review article aims to produce a singular authoritative resource outlining reader performance’s practical realities within cancer trials, whether they occur within a clinical or an independent central review.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiologists and Clinical Trials: Part 1 The Truth About Reader Disagreements

Schmid

Raunig

Miller³

et al. 2021

Ther Innov Regul Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This observation has been made previously in comparing CT images on PACS and on film. 8 We also have demonstrated that there is no significant loss of resolution when comparing an image on the ultrasound monitor with the same image on a PACS monitor in our system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Evaluation of PACS in ultrasonography

Wolfman

Boehme

et al. 1992

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review our experience with a picture archiving and communication system to replace film in the ultrasound section of a clinical radiology department. The system includes three ultrasound units connected by a fiberoptic network via acquisition nodes to a central data management system, workstation, and optical jukebox. The system handles 80% of sonographic studies in the department. Image production, interpretation, storage, and retrieval are evaluated. Despite limitations, a picture archiving and communication system can be integrated into a functioning ultrasound section of an active radiology department with minimal disruption and promising results.

show abstract

“…Despite the theoretic advantages of soft-copy interpretation of CT, other studies [7][8][9][10][11] have found unacceptably slow interpretation times when compared with those of conventional hard-copy interpretation with film. Our study was undertaken to determine if radiologists' productivity could be enhanced in the routine interpretation of CT with current PACS technology.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Radiologists' Productivity in the Interpretation of CT Scans

Reiner

Siegel²,

Hooper³

et al. 2001

American Journal of Roentgenology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE.We compared radiologists' times in the interpretation of CT using hardcopy films with the interpretation using a soft-copy picture archiving and communication system (PACS) computer workstation.MATERIALS AND METHODS. One hundred CT examinations were selected at random and reviewed by four board-certified radiologists experienced in soft-copy interpretation. We performed time-motion analysis to determine the total time required to display, interpret, and dictate the individual findings of CT using conventional hard-copy interpretation on a viewbox and soft-copy interpretation, using a four-monitor high-resolution (2048 × 1536 pixel) workstation.RESULTS. Time-motion analysis showed a reduction of 16.2% in the overall time required for soft-copy interpretation of CT compared with that of film. Time savings with soft-copy interpretation were observed for all four participating radiologists. The benefit of soft-copy interpretation was increased for examinations in which there were comparison studies.CONCLUSION. We found that soft-copy interpretation of CT using a PACS workstation requires less time than interpretation using conventional film hung on a viewbox. The transition to filmless imaging has the potential to improve radiologists' productivity and reportturnaround time.

show abstract

Evaluation of a PACS Workstation for Assessment of Body CT Studies

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Radiologists and Clinical Trials: Part 1 The Truth About Reader Disagreements

Radiologists and Clinical Trials: Part 1 The Truth About Reader Disagreements

Evaluation of PACS in ultrasonography

Radiologists' Productivity in the Interpretation of CT Scans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About