Reproduction of radiologic images on plain paper

Digital Paper Prints as Replacement for LASER Films: A Study of Intra-Observer Agreement for Wrist Radiographic Findings in Rickets

INTRODUCTION

Replacement of conventional LASER films with digital paper prints as supplement to radiology reports may serve as an economical and environment friendly method. However, it is essential that such a change does not compromise patient's intended diagnostic outcome.

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and acceptability of digital paper prints for the radiographic images by the treating physicians and radiologists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This observational analytical study was done at a tertiary care hospital of New Delhi, India. A total of 58 consecutively ordered wrist radiographs of paediatric patients (6 months to 12 years of age) for ruling out rickets were retrieved from the PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication System). These 58 radiographs, out of which 21 (36.2%) had radiological evidence of rickets over PACS were printed on two different media i.e., LASER films and glossy photographic paper. An objective scoring for the severity of rickets was done on both LASER films and paper prints by six observers independently. Overall comfort level with paper prints was rated on a 1-5 point Likert scale. Data was analysed using STATA 14.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX).

RESULTS

Intra-observer percentage agreement and value of Cohen's kappa for PACS vs. LASER films and PACS vs. paper prints was equal i.e., 98.3% and 0.97, respectively. Intra-observer agreement between LASER films and paper prints for all six observers was excellent, ranging from 0.92 to 1.00; percentage agreement ranging from 94.8% to 100%. Fracture of ulna/radius present in 4 sets of the X-rays was well demonstrated in both LASER films and paper prints. Comfort level with paper prints was rated as 5 out of 5 by all due to no requirement of any special illuminated view box and dark room.

CONCLUSION

This study concludes that the use of paper prints may serve as a reliable alternative to LASER films to communicate the report of wrist radiographs for the treating physicians without any compromise over diagnostic information in cases of rickets.

Printed radiographs--is what you see what you get?

Digital dental radiography allows for exchange of images between primary and secondary care. However, it is common practice for radiographs to be printed out and attached to referrals.This study investigates the loss of diagnostic information of printed radiographs compared to the on-screen digital image.The best quality was achieved with images printed onto radiographic film or onto photographic paper with an inkjet printer. Laser and inkjet printer output onto 80 gsm office paper resulted in a loss of diagnostic information. Wherever possible, radiographs should be transmitted digitally between clinicians to maintain image integrity.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This paper illustrates the potential pitfalls of printing radiographs to be sent with referrals.

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.

Left behind radiological investigations: An inherent problem

OBJECTIVES

To assess the number of investigations left behind by patients in radiology department, their cost, and the possible methods of reducing the problem.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 1424 radiographs, 160 computed tomography (CT) scans, 300 ultrasonography (USG) reports, and 46 Doppler reports were left behind by patients in one financial year. The total cost of these left behind investigations was calculated and the reports were categorized into normal and abnormal for each modality.

RESULTS

Of the radiographs left behind 658 were abnormal, with 211 among these being radiographs of postoperative patients. Thirty-seven percent of CT scans had positive findings. Sixty-eight percent of USG reports had positive findings while 46% of Doppler reports were abnormal.

CONCLUSION

We believe that the cost and number of these left behind investigations over a period of time would definitely be significant for the health care system in a developing country. It is time to think of the possible reasons and methods for containing this problem.

Comparison of paper print and soft copy reading in plain paediatric radiographs

With the introduction of a Picture Archiving and Communication System, Computed (CR) and Digital Radiography (DR), reading digital images takes place from a computer screen. Laser paper print rather than laser film would be a significantly more cost-effective option for hard copy production, but would need to demonstrate acceptable diagnostic quality compared to the reference standard of screen reading. A comparative study of 51 digital paediatric CR radiographs presented in laser paper print and soft copy format to determine the diagnostic value of the paper print when compared to the reference standard of screen reading. Chest radiography had a poor sensitivity of 66.1% while musculoskeletal and abdominal radiography had acceptable sensitivities of 90% and 99%, respectively. Specificity was excellent for the different regions (98.6-99.5%). The paper print format should not be used for diagnostic purposes in paediatric chest radiography, but may still be used for demonstration when accompanied by the radiology rapport obtained from soft copy reading. Further studies would be needed to investigate the use of paper prints in abdominal and musculoskeletal radiography owing to the low number of abdominal radiographs and lack of musculoskeletal case variety in our study.

Image Quality of a Wet Laser Printer Versus a Paper Printer for Full-Field Digital Mammograms

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to compare the image quality of a wet laser printer with that of a paper printer for full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For both a wet laser printer and a paper printer connected to an FFDM system, image quality parameters were evaluated using a standardized printer test image (luminance density, dynamic range). The detectability of standardized objects on a phantom was also evaluated. Furthermore, 640 mammograms of 80 patients with different breast tissue composition patterns were imaged with both printers. Subjective image quality parameters (brightness, contrast, and detection of details of anatomic structures-that is, skin, subcutis, musculature, glandular tissue, and fat), the detectability of breast lesions (mass, calcifications), and the diagnostic performance according to the BI-RADS classification were evaluated.

RESULTS

Both the luminance density and the dynamic range were superior for the wet laser printer. More standardized objects were visible on the phantom imaged with the wet laser printer than with the paper printer (13/16 vs 11/16). Each subjective image quality parameter of the mammograms from the wet laser printer was rated superior to those of the paper printer. Significantly more breast lesions were detected on the wet laser printer images than on the paper printer images (masses, 13 vs 10; calcifications, 65 vs 48; p < 0.05). With the paper printer images, BI-RADS 4 and 5 categories were underestimated for 10 (43.5%) of 23 patients.

CONCLUSION

For FFDM, images obtained from a wet laser printer show superior objective and subjective image quality compared with a paper printer. As a consequence, the paper printer should not be used for FFDM.

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.