Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare > Volume 6, Number 6 > Pp. 335-338

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Brebner, J. A Articles by Ritchie, L. D Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Original Article

The diagnostic acceptability of lowbandwidth transmission for tele-ultrasound

John A Brebner, Hugh Ruddick-Bracken, Eileen M Brebner, A Patricia M Smith, Karen A Duncan, Andrew J McLeod, Suzanne McClelland, Fiona J Gilbert, Angus Thompson, J Ross MacLean and Lewis D Ritchie

Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Aberdeen; Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Aberdeen; Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Aberdeen; Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, Aberdeen Royal Hospitals Trust; Department of Radiology, University of Aberdeen; Department of Radiology, University of Aberdeen; Department of Radiology, University of Aberdeen; Department of Radiology, University of Aberdeen; Department of Radiology, Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust, UK; Department of Medicine, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, USA; Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Aberdeen
Ultrasound recordings were made of 100 consecutive patients attending for obstetric examination in Peterhead and 100 patients attending for non-obstetric examination in Aberdeen. Two identical videoconferencing machines were used to transmit and receive the original ultrasound images at data rates of 384 kbit/s and 128 kbit/s, thus producing a total of three tapes for each case. Four experienced observers, who were blinded to the transmission bandwidth, each viewed 300 examinations and decided whether the images were acceptable or not for diagnosis. Almost 100% of the obstetric ultrasound images on the original recordings were considered diagnostically acceptable, compared with 93% of the 384 kbit/s transmissions and 44% of the 128 kbit/s transmissions. Similarly, 99% of the non-obstetric ultrasound images were considered acceptable, compared with 87% of the 384 kbit/s transmissions and 21% of the 128 kbit/s transmissions. For the obstetric ultrasound images the intra-observer diagnostic agreement was 93% ( = 0.89) between the original and the 384 kbit/s transmissions, and 78% ( = 0.63) between the original and the 128 kbit/s transmissions. For the non-obstetric ultrasound images the respective intra-observer diagnostic agreements were 77% ( = 0.62) and 78% ( = 0.63). The quality of dynamic ultrasound images transmitted at 384 kbit/s was diagnostically acceptable, but was unsatisfactory at 128 kbit/s.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?