![]() Interpretation-reporting times were analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale via a linear mixed model and transformed to the geometric mean. Comparisons of agreement were conducted by way of Fisher’s exact tests. Reports were reviewed for typographical or speech recognition errors. Bone age standard selection, interpretation-reporting time, and user preferences were recorded. Two pediatric radiologists performed research interpretations of bone age studies randomized to either the digital (Digital Bone Age Companion, Oxford University Press) or G&P method, generating reports to mimic clinical workflow. IRB approval was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study. ![]() We hypothesized that pediatric radiologists would achieve equivalent results with each method while digital workflow would improve speed, experience, and reporting quality. To assess reader performance and subjective workflow experience when reporting bone age studies with a digital bone age reference as compared to the Greulich and Pyle atlas (G&P). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |