Comparison between different cost devices for digital capture of X-ray films: an image characteristics detection approach.

A common teleradiology practice is digitizing films. The costs of specialized digitizers are very high, that is why there is a trend to use conventional scanners and digital cameras. Statistical clinical studies are required to determine the accuracy of these devices, which are very difficult to carry out. The purpose of this study was to compare three capture devices in terms of their capacity to detect several image characteristics. Spatial resolution, contrast, gray levels, and geometric deformation were compared for a specialized digitizer ICR (US$ 15,000), a conventional scanner UMAX (US$ 1,800), and a digital camera LUMIX (US$ 450, but require an additional support system and a light box for about US$ 400). Test patterns printed in films were used. The results detected gray levels lower than real values for all three devices; acceptable contrast and low geometric deformation with three devices. All three devices are appropriate solutions, but a digital camera requires more operator training and more settings.

Agreement and reading time for differently-priced devices for the digital capture of X-ray films.

We assessed the reliability of three digital capture devices: a film digitizer (which cost US $15,000), a flat-bed scanner (US $1800) and a digital camera (US $450). Reliability was measured as the agreement between six observers when reading images acquired from a single device and also in terms of the pair-device agreement. The images were 136 chest X-ray cases. The variables measured were the interstitial opacities distribution, interstitial patterns, nodule size and percentage pneumothorax size. The agreement between the six readers when reading images acquired from a single device was similar for the three devices. The pair-device agreements were moderate for all variables. There were significant differences in reading-time between devices: the mean reading-time for the film digitizer was 93 s, it was 59 s for the flat-bed scanner and 70 s for the digital camera. Despite the differences in their cost, there were no substantial differences in the performance of the three devices.

Comparison between differently priced devices for digital capture of X-ray films using computed tomography as a gold standard: a multireader-multicase receiver operating characteristic curve study.

OBJECTIVE: Film digitizers are a specialized technology that is available for scanning X-ray radiographs; however, their cost makes them unaffordable for developing countries. Thus, less expensive alternatives are used. The purpose of this study was to compare three devices for digital capture of X-ray films: a film digitizer (US $15,000), a flatbed scanner (US $1800), and a 10-megapixel digital camera (US $450), in terms of diagnostic accuracy, defined as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves and computed tomography as the gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample included 136 chest X-ray cases with computed tomography confirmation of the presence or absence of pneumothorax, interstitial opacities, or nodules. The readers were six radiologists who made observations of eight variables for each digital capture of the X-ray films: three main variables to determine the accuracy in the detection of the above-mentioned pathologies, four secondary variables to categorize other pathological classifications, and one variable regarding digital image quality. RESULTS: The receiver operating characteristic curves for each device and pathology were very similar. For the main variables, there was no significant statistical difference in diagnostic accuracy between the devices. For the secondary variables, >84% of cases were correctly classified, even those that were classified with the lowest image quality. High accuracy was determined for the three main variables (0.75 to 0.96), indicating good performance for all tested devices, despite their very different prices. CONCLUSIONS: Choosing a device for a teleradiology service should involve additional factors, such as capture time, maintenance concerns, and training requirements.