Fracture interpretation using electronic presentation: A comparison

The purposes of this study were to determine whether (1) fractures are interpreted differently after digitization and electronic presentation; (2) there are differences in accuracy between screen radiographs and electronic presentation; (3) differences in interpretation are a function of monitor resolution; and (4) differences in interpretation between radiographs and electronic images relate to radiological subspecialty. Forty cases with fractures of varying degrees of subtlety and 35 cases without fractures were interpreted. Radiographs were digitized with 2 different systems and displayed on 3 monitors of different spatial resolution. Four radiologists, with varying experience, were asked to decide whether fractures were present, absent, or they were uncertain. Accuracy of interpretation increased with improved electronic image presentation and monitor resolution. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of fracture detection on System A were 63%, 98%, and 78%, respectively. The results were 72%, 98%, and 84% with System B. System C results were 81%, 97%, and 88% with Lumiscan 75, and 82%, 96%, and 88% with Lumiscan 150. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy results of the original radiograph interpretation were 89%, 95%, and 92%. Results were significantly different for System A. No significant differences were found for the other systems compared with film radiographs. System A did not have adequate monitors for interpretation of subtle fractures. Systems B and C were capable of displaying even subtle fractures. Our initial results indicate that interpretation with high-quality 1K×1K monitors is substantially similar to radiograph interpretation.