• 1

    Krupinski E, Gonzales M & Gonzales C, et al. Evaluation of a digital camera for acquiring radiographic images for telemedicine applications. Telemed J E Health 2000;6:297302.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Kuduvalli GR, Rangayyan RM, Desautels JE. High resolution digital teleradiology: a perspective. J Digit Imaging 1991;4:251261.

  • 3

    De Backer AI, Mortele KJ, De Keulenaer BL. Picture archiving and communication system: the impact of filmless and distance radiology. JBR-BTR 2004;87:300304.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Keller GG, Corley EA. Impact of video images on OFA evaluation of hip status. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 1994;35:1921.

  • 5

    Bassignani MJ, Bubash-Faust L & Ciambotti J, et al. Conversion of teaching file cases from film to digital format: a comparison between use of a diagnostic-quality digitizer and use of a flatbed scanner with transparency adapter. Acad Radiol 2003;10:536542.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Martel J, Jimenez MD & Martin-Santos FJ, et al. Accuracy of teleradiology in skeletal disorders: solitary bone lesions and fractures. J Telemed Telecare 1995;1:1318.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Averch TD, O'Sullivan D & Breitenbach C, et al. Digital radiographic imaging transfer: comparison with plain radiographs. J Endourol 1997;11:99101.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Gitlin JN, Scott WW & Bell K, et al. Interpretation accuracy of a CCD film digitizer. J Digit Imaging 2002;15 (suppl 1):5763.

  • 9

    Seeley G, Fisher HD & Stempski MO, et al. Total digital radiology department: spatial resolution requirements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987;148:421426.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Templeton AW, Dwyer SJ III & Johnson JA, et al. A digital radiology imaging system: Description and clinical evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987;149:847851.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Bramble JM, Murphy MD. Comparison of digital and conventional musculoskeletal radiography: observer performance study (lett). Radiology 1990;177:587588.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Reponen J, Lahde S & Tervonen O, et al. Low-cost digital teleradiology. Eur J Radiol 1995;19:226231.

  • 13

    Schellingerhout D, Chew FS & Mullins ME, et al. Projected digital radiologic images for teaching: balance of image quality with data size constraints. Acad Radiol 2002;9:157162.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Yamamoto LG. Using JPEG image compression to facilitate telemedicine. Am J Emerg Med 1995;13:5557.

  • 15

    Scrivani PV. Assessing diagnostic accuracy in veterinary imaging. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2002;43:442448.

  • 16

    Cederberg RA, Frederiksen NL & Benson BW, et al. Influence of the digital image display monitor on observer performance. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999;28:203207.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Sim L, Manthey K & Esdaile P, et al. Comparison of computer display monitors for computed radiography diagnostic application in a radiology PACS. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2004;27:148150.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Comparison of digitized and conventional radiographic images for assessment of hip joint conformation in dogs

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211.
  • | 2 Biostatistics Group, Office of Medical Research, School of Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211.

Abstract

Objective—To determine agreement between assessments of canine hip joint conformation provided by board-certified radiologists after evaluation of digitized and conventional radiographic images.

Sample Population—200 pelvic radiographs previously evaluated by radiologists using the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals standard grading system for canine hip joint conformation.

Procedures—Each of 20 board-certified radiologists evaluated conventional and digitized pelvic radiographs from each of 200 dogs for hip joint conformation. A weighted kappa coefficient and intraclass correlation were used to determine agreement between assessments derived from digitized radiographic images and conventional radiographs and between the original Orthopedic Foundation for Animals conformation ratings and assessments derived from each image format.

Results—Overall, agreement between assessments derived from the digitized images and conventional radiographs was good, with all but 1 radiologist attaining a weighted kappa coefficient > 0.61. Intraclass correlation for each radiologist ranged from 0.75 to 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.67 to 0.984). On comparison of conformation assessments, 95.7% of those derived from conventional radiographs and digitized images were within 1 grade. On comparison of digitized radiographic conformation assessments and conformation ratings, 94.2% were within 1 grade. On comparison of conventional radiographic conformation assessments and conformation ratings, 92.3% were within 1 grade.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The use of digitized radiographic images does not appear to impact the radiographic assessments of canine hip joint conformation made by consultant radiologists. Compared with conventional radiographs, the use of digitized radiographic images decreases storage space requirements and enables more rapid reporting of assessment results for individual dogs.

Abstract

Objective—To determine agreement between assessments of canine hip joint conformation provided by board-certified radiologists after evaluation of digitized and conventional radiographic images.

Sample Population—200 pelvic radiographs previously evaluated by radiologists using the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals standard grading system for canine hip joint conformation.

Procedures—Each of 20 board-certified radiologists evaluated conventional and digitized pelvic radiographs from each of 200 dogs for hip joint conformation. A weighted kappa coefficient and intraclass correlation were used to determine agreement between assessments derived from digitized radiographic images and conventional radiographs and between the original Orthopedic Foundation for Animals conformation ratings and assessments derived from each image format.

Results—Overall, agreement between assessments derived from the digitized images and conventional radiographs was good, with all but 1 radiologist attaining a weighted kappa coefficient > 0.61. Intraclass correlation for each radiologist ranged from 0.75 to 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.67 to 0.984). On comparison of conformation assessments, 95.7% of those derived from conventional radiographs and digitized images were within 1 grade. On comparison of digitized radiographic conformation assessments and conformation ratings, 94.2% were within 1 grade. On comparison of conventional radiographic conformation assessments and conformation ratings, 92.3% were within 1 grade.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The use of digitized radiographic images does not appear to impact the radiographic assessments of canine hip joint conformation made by consultant radiologists. Compared with conventional radiographs, the use of digitized radiographic images decreases storage space requirements and enables more rapid reporting of assessment results for individual dogs.

Contributor Notes

Radiographic images and case data used in the study were provided by the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals Inc.

Address correspondence to Dr. Essman.