Program Information
A Consumer Report for Mobile Digital Radiography: A Holistic Comparative Evaluation Across Four Systems
J Wells*, J Christensen, E Samei, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Presentations
TH-AB-201-12 (Thursday, July 16, 2015) 7:30 AM - 9:30 AM Room: 201
Purpose: To provide a template for the comprehensive clinical evaluation of new imaging technologies with initial application to mobile digital radiography (DR).
Methods: Four mobile DR devices (GE Optima XR220amx+Flashpad; Carestream DRX Revolution+DRX-1C; Philips Mobile Diagnost wDR; Philips Mobile Diagnost wDR+Skyplate) were evaluated under four categories: 1)Technical specifications: Vendor data were collected and complied into a unified nomenclature. 2)Physical performance: Each unit underwent imaging physics evaluation including MTF, NPS, DQE, and grid artifact analysis. 3)Clinical performance: Fifteen bedside chest radiographs were acquired using each unit. Metadata were stripped and images cropped to 14:17 aspect ratio to ensure vendor anonymity. Six cardiothoracic radiologists scored the randomized images on PACS workstations using five criteria: overall quality, mediastinum noise, rib-lung contrast, lung density, and lung detail. Results were processed using multiple linear regression analysis. 4)Operability performance: A survey was designed and administered to technologists asking questions which captured use, preference, and experiential data for each unit. To avoid impropriety, units were randomly assigned numbers 1-4.
Results: Vendor specifications were compiled into a single-page table enabling ready comparative review. All systems had MTF within 20% and NNPS within 27% of the average response at frequencies below 2.5 mm⁻¹. Units [1,2,4] had DQE within 19% of average while unit 3 was 49% below average at high-frequencies. According to grid artifact analysis, the best and worst results were from units [2,3,4,1], respectively. The radiologist study revealed high inter-radiologist variability which limited the number of significant overall results. Survey results uncovered clear technologist biases. In general, technologists value practical over optional features.
Conclusion: The compilation of vendor, physicist, radiologist, and technologist data provides an easy means for healthcare professionals to compare different medical equipment options using a data-driven approach. This type of comprehensive assessment now serves as a model for new technology review at our institution.
Funding Support, Disclosures, and Conflict of Interest: This work was supported by Duke University Health Systems.
Contact Email: