Acil Tıpta Farklı Monitör Kullanımının Radyografi Değerlendirmeye Etkisi

Year 2021, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 18 - 21, 30.01.2021

Bahadir Çağlar , Süha Serin

https://doi.org/10.16899/jcm.801664

Abstract

Amaç
Radyoloji kılavuzlarında medikal monitör kullanımı önerilmesine rağmen medikal monitörlerin radyoloji dışı bölümlerde kullanımı nadirdir. Bu çalışmada acil serviste tecrübesiz hekimlerin radyografi yorumlanmasına; led, tablet ve medikal monitör kullanımının etkisini araştırdık.
Gereç ve Yöntem
Çalışmaya tıp fakültesinden 50 intörn doktor dahil edildi. Katılımcılardan önceden hazırlanmış radyografi setlerine led, tablet ve medikal monitörlerde tanı koymaları, karar veremedikleri radyografiler için radyoloji konsültasyonu istemeleri istendi. Katılımcıların tanıları ve radyoloji konsültasyonu isteme durumları kaydedildi.
Bulgular
Katılımcıların monitörlere göre doğru tanılarının median değerleri; led monitörde 13.5, tablet monitörde 13 ve medical monitörde 16 olarak bulundu. İstenilen radyoloji konsültasyonu sayılarının medyan değeri; led monitörde 6, tablet monitörde 7 ve medikal monitörde 4 olarak bulundu. Medikal monitör, doğru tanı ve istenilen konsültasyon sayısında diğer iki monitöre göre istatistiksel olarak üstün bulundu.
Sonuç
Tecrübesiz hekimlerin, acil servis gibi iş yükünün fazla ve zamanın değerli olduğu yerlerde medikal monitör kullanmaları tanı doğruluğunu artıracak ve konsültasyon isteme oranını azaltacaktır.

Keywords

Acil tıp, Radyografi, Radyolojik teknoloji

The Effect of Different Monitor Use on Radiography Interpretation in Emergency Medicine

Abstract

Aim
Although it is recommended to use a medical monitor in radiology guides, it is rare to use a medical monitor in non-radiology departments. In this study, the effect of using LED, tablet and medical monitor in the radiography evaluation of inexperienced physicians in the emergency room was investigated.
Materials and Methods
Fifty medical intern from the medical school were included in the study. Participants were asked to diagnose pre-prepared radiography sets on LEDs, tablets and medical monitors and to request a radiology consultation for radiographs they could not decide. The diagnoses of medical interns and cases of requesting radiology consultation were recorded.
Results
The median values of the correct diagnosis of the participants according to the monitors; 13.5 on led monitor, 13 on tablet monitor and 16 on medical monitor. The median value of the desired radiology consultation numbers; 6 on led monitor, 7 on tablet monitor and 4 on medical monitor. The medical monitor has statistically signficant difference to the other two monitors, in the correct diagnosis and number of consultations desired.
Conclusion
The use of medical monitors by inexperienced physicians in the emergency room where workload is extreme and time is valuable, will increase the diagnosis accuracy and decrease the rate of request for consultation.

Keywords

Emergency Medicine, Radiography, Radiologic technology

References

• 1) Raja AS, Ip IK, Sodickson AD, et al. Radiology utilization in the emergency department: trends of the past 2 decades. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2014; 203(2): 355-360.
• 2) Abboud S, Weiss F, Siegel E, Jeudy J. TB or Not TB: interreader and intrareader variability in screening diagnosis on an iPad versus a traditional display. Journal of the American College of Radiology.2013; 10(1): 42-44.
• 3) Shintaku WH, Scarbecz M, Venturin JS. Evaluation of interproximal caries using the IPad 2 and a liquid crystal display monitor. Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology and oral radiology. 2012; 113(5): e40-e44.
• 4) Hattori H, Kuwayama Y, Inui Y, et al. Reliability of diagnosing acute ischemic cerebrovascular on magnetic resonance imaging disorders using iPads. Japanese journal of radiology. 2018; 36(12): 726-735.
• 5) Norweck JT, Seibert JA, Andriole KP, et al. ACR-AAPM-SIIM technical standard for electronic practice of medical imaging. J Digit Imaging 2013; 26(1): 38-52.
• 6) Japan Radiological Society. “Guidelines for the handling of digital images”. http://www.radio logy.jp/conte nt/files/20150417.pdf. Accessed: May 15, 2020.
• 7) JIRA. “Quality assurance guideline for medical imaging display systems”. http://www.jira-net.or.jp/publishing /files /jesra/JESRA X-0093B 2017.pdf. Accessed: May 15, 2020.
• 8) Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit. Richtlinie zur Durchführung der Qualitätssicherung bei Röntgeneinrichtungen zur Untersuchung oder Behandlung von Menschen nach den 16 und 17 der Röntgenverordnung Qualitätssicherungs Richtlinie (QS-RL). Gemeinsames Ministerialblatt. 2011: 718.
• 9) John S, Poh AC, Lim TC, Chan, EH. The iPad tablet computer for mobile on-call radiology diagnosis? Auditing discrepancy in CT and MRI reporting. Journal of digital imaging.2012; 25(5): 628-634.
• 10) Johnson PT, Zimmerman SL, Heath D, et al. The iPad as a mobile device for CT display and interpretation: diagnostic accuracy for identification of pulmonary embolism. Emergency radiology. 2012; 19(4): 323-327.
• 11) McEntee MF, Lowe J, Butler ML, et al. iPads and LCDs show similar performance in the detection of pulmonary nodules. In: medical ımaging 2012: ımage perception, observer performance, and technology assessment. International society for optics and photonics. 2012; 83180C.
• 12) Langer S, Fetterly K, Mandrekar J, et al. ROC study of four LCD displays under typical medical center lighting conditions. Journal of digital imaging. 2006; 19(1): 30-40.
• 13) Geijer H, Geijer M, Forsberg L, Kheddache S, Sund P. Comparison of color LCD and medical-grade monochrome LCD displays in diagnostic radiology. Journal of digital imaging. 2007; 20(2): 114-121.
• 14) Cederberg RA, Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, Shulman JD. Influence of the digital image display monitor on observer performance. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 1999; 28(4): 203-207.
• 15) Sim L, Manthey K, Esdaile P, Benson M. Comparison of computer display monitors for computed radiography diagnostic application in a radiology PACS. Australasian Physics & Engineering Sciences in Medicine. 2004; 27(3): 148.