Youmans D C, Don S, Hildebolt C, Shackelford G D, Luker G D, McAlister W H
Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, St. Louis Children's Hospital, Washington University School of Medicine, MO 63110, USA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998 Nov;171(5):1415-9. doi: 10.2214/ajr.171.5.9798889.
The objective of our study was to compare child abuse detection using screen-film radiographs and their digitized images displayed on a computer workstation.
Skeletal surveys of 20 consecutive child abuse patients whose abuse was clinically proven by a combination of history, physical and radiographic findings, and social work history, and 20 consecutive control subjects were evaluated. Three radiologists rated both the screen-film radiographs (400-speed, double-emulsion film) and their digitized images displayed on a workstation (2K x 2K resolution) using a six-point ordinal scale for suspicion of child abuse, fracture detection, and image quality. The rating response was analyzed using multiobserver-multicase receiver operating characteristic analysis of variance. The McNemar test was used to evaluate differences between imaging techniques and between diagnoses made using each imaging technique and clinically proven child abuse.
The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for screen-film radiographs was 0.934+/-0.025 and for digitized images was 0.922+/-0.013. This difference was not significant (p = .658); however, two observers significantly underestimated the child abuse diagnosis with digitized images (p = .02). In a review of the false-negative child abuse diagnoses, observers failed to recognize characteristic metaphyseal fractures (10 observations) and rib fractures (five observations) on digitized images that had been recognized on screen-film radiographs. Mean image quality was rated significantly lower (p < .0001) and interpretation time was significantly longer (75 sec; p < .001) for the digitized images than for screen-film radiographs.
The characteristic types of fractures that were not identified on the digitized images, lower image quality, and longer interpretation time raise concern that digitized images may not be adequate for interpretation of suspected child abuse.
我们研究的目的是比较使用屏-片X线照片及其在计算机工作站上显示的数字化图像来检测儿童虐待情况。
对20例连续的经临床证实存在虐待情况的儿童虐待患者(其虐待情况通过病史、体格检查、影像学检查结果以及社会工作史综合判定)和20例连续的对照受试者进行骨骼检查评估。三名放射科医生使用六点顺序量表对屏-片X线照片(400速双乳剂胶片)及其在工作站上显示的数字化图像(2K×2K分辨率)进行评分,以评估儿童虐待的可疑程度、骨折检测情况及图像质量。使用多观察者-多病例接受者操作特征方差分析来分析评分反应。采用McNemar检验来评估成像技术之间以及使用每种成像技术做出的诊断与经临床证实的儿童虐待之间的差异。
屏-片X线照片的接受者操作特征曲线下面积为0.934±0.025,数字化图像的接受者操作特征曲线下面积为0.922±0.013。这一差异不显著(p = 0.658);然而,两名观察者显著低估了数字化图像的儿童虐待诊断(p = 0.02)。在对假阴性儿童虐待诊断的回顾中,观察者未能识别出在屏-片X线照片上已被识别出的数字化图像上的特征性干骺端骨折(10次观察)和肋骨骨折(5次观察)。数字化图像的平均图像质量评分显著更低(p < 0.0001),且解读时间显著更长(75秒;p < 0.001),与屏-片X线照片相比。
数字化图像上未识别出的特征性骨折类型、较低的图像质量以及较长的解读时间引发了人们对数字化图像可能不足以用于解读疑似儿童虐待情况的担忧。