Single-Exposure, Dual-Energy Subtraction Flat Panel X-Ray Detectors: A Health Technology Assessment.

Q1 Medicine Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series Pub Date : 2024-11-12 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01
{"title":"Single-Exposure, Dual-Energy Subtraction Flat Panel X-Ray Detectors: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In medicine, x-rays are used to generate images of tissues and structures inside the body. X-rays are emitted by a source device and, after passing through the body, strike a detector, which forms an image of the tissues and structures the x-rays passed through. Dual-energy subtraction (DES) x-ray systems use radiation of different energy spectra (energy levels) and the principle of differential absorption characteristics of bone and soft tissue to produce separate bone and soft tissue x-ray images, in addition to a conventional x-ray image. The aim is to minimize potential issues with anatomical overlap with conventional x-ray that may obscure some findings. Single-exposure, DES flat panel x-ray detectors produce a conventional x-ray image in addition to DES bone and soft tissue x-ray images using a single x-ray exposure. We conducted a health technology assessment of single-exposure, DES digital flat panel x-ray detectors in adults for indications such as pneumonia, pneumothorax, and pulmonary nodules, and for visualizing lines and tubes, compared with conventional x-ray. Our assessment included an evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy, the impact on diagnostic confidence, patient management and clinical outcomes, the budget impact of publicly funding the technology, and the experiences, preferences, and values of health care providers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the QUADAS-C tool and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic literature search on the economic evidence of single-exposure, DES flat panel x-ray detectors. We did not conduct a primary economic evaluation because of limited evidence on the implications of this technology. We analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding single-exposure, DES flat panel detectors in Ontario hospitals. To contextualize the potential value of single-exposure, DES flat panel x-ray detectors, we spoke with people with expertise in diagnostic imaging, including radiologists and other health care practitioners.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The clinical evidence review identified 2 eligible observational studies that assessed the use of single-exposure, DES flat panel x-ray detectors to generate DES bone and soft tissue x-ray images and a conventional x-ray image. The findings of 1 study suggest an improvement in the sensitivity and specificity for the detection of pulmonary nodule calcification with the use of single-exposure, DES soft tissue and conventional x-ray images compared with using a conventional x-ray image alone (results were statistically significant for 2 out of 5 reviewers; GRADE: Low). In one study, x-ray image reviewers reported an improvement in the visibility of the tips of lines and tubes (although these were visualized with the conventional x-ray image alone) in all patients and an improvement in the diagnostic confidence in 16 (57.1%) patients, with no difference in the time to review the images with the use of single-exposure, DES bone and soft tissue x-ray images plus the conventional x-ray image compared with using the conventional x-ray image alone, but the evidence is very uncertain (GRADE: Very low).The economic evidence review identified 1 costing study in the US setting. This analysis suggested adoption of single-exposure, DES x-ray detectors may lead to cost savings. However, this study was deemed not directly applicable to the Ontario setting. The cost-effectiveness of single-exposure, DES flat panel x-ray detectors is therefore unknown. Owing to the limited evidence on the impact of these detectors on short-term outcomes such as diagnostic accuracy and workflow, and long-term costs and health outcomes, we did not conduct a primary economic evaluation. Our budget impact analysis estimated that, for a typical community hospital, purchasing 3 detectors to retrofit existing x-ray machines would lead to an additional cost of $12,137 per institution. However, there is a large degree of uncertainty around the downstream costs and benefits of this technology.We interviewed 20 health care providers who had expertise with x-ray systems. Those who had the opportunity to interpret the x-ray images produced by a single-exposure, DES detector in a clinical setting were supportive of this technology and perceived an increase in confidence with diagnosing patients. Retrofitting existing x-ray systems to be compatible with the single-exposure, DES detector posed a challenge for operators as it was not a seamless process. Those who operated the retrofitted x-ray systems using the single-exposure, DES detector commented on issues related to workflow, including the physical specifications, connectivity, battery life, and maneuverability as barriers to use. Participants who did not have experience using the DES detector technology expressed uncertainty regarding the benefits compared to the alternative options currently in use in Ontario, such as image enhancing software, emerging artificial intelligence technology, and low-dose CT scanning. None of the users had experience with a fully integrated mobile x-ray system (i.e., a mobile x-ray system that did not require retrofitting to be compatible with the single-exposure, DES detector).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of single-exposure, DES flat panel x-ray detectors may lead to an improvement in the sensitivity and specificity to detect pulmonary nodule calcification compared with conventional x-ray, but the evidence is very uncertain for its effect on the visibility of the tips of lines and tubes, diagnostic confidence, and time to review the x-ray images compared with conventional x-ray. Evidence gaps include lack of evidence for the use of the technology for most populations and outcomes that we sought to evaluate. Due to limited clinical and economic evidence, the cost-effectiveness of single-exposure, DES flat panel x-ray detectors is currently unknown. We estimate that purchasing 3 detectors to retrofit with existing x-ray machines may lead to an additional cost of $12,137 per institution. Users of single-exposure, DES x-ray detectors who viewed and interpreted the images produced spoke positively about their experience with the technology and expressed an increase in confidence when making a diagnosis. Participants who operated the retrofitted single-exposure, DES x-ray detector commented on issues that negatively impacted their workflow. The experiences of providers with a fully integrated system are unknown at this time.</p>","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"24 9","pages":"1-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11650440/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In medicine, x-rays are used to generate images of tissues and structures inside the body. X-rays are emitted by a source device and, after passing through the body, strike a detector, which forms an image of the tissues and structures the x-rays passed through. Dual-energy subtraction (DES) x-ray systems use radiation of different energy spectra (energy levels) and the principle of differential absorption characteristics of bone and soft tissue to produce separate bone and soft tissue x-ray images, in addition to a conventional x-ray image. The aim is to minimize potential issues with anatomical overlap with conventional x-ray that may obscure some findings. Single-exposure, DES flat panel x-ray detectors produce a conventional x-ray image in addition to DES bone and soft tissue x-ray images using a single x-ray exposure. We conducted a health technology assessment of single-exposure, DES digital flat panel x-ray detectors in adults for indications such as pneumonia, pneumothorax, and pulmonary nodules, and for visualizing lines and tubes, compared with conventional x-ray. Our assessment included an evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy, the impact on diagnostic confidence, patient management and clinical outcomes, the budget impact of publicly funding the technology, and the experiences, preferences, and values of health care providers.

Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the QUADAS-C tool and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic literature search on the economic evidence of single-exposure, DES flat panel x-ray detectors. We did not conduct a primary economic evaluation because of limited evidence on the implications of this technology. We analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding single-exposure, DES flat panel detectors in Ontario hospitals. To contextualize the potential value of single-exposure, DES flat panel x-ray detectors, we spoke with people with expertise in diagnostic imaging, including radiologists and other health care practitioners.

Results: The clinical evidence review identified 2 eligible observational studies that assessed the use of single-exposure, DES flat panel x-ray detectors to generate DES bone and soft tissue x-ray images and a conventional x-ray image. The findings of 1 study suggest an improvement in the sensitivity and specificity for the detection of pulmonary nodule calcification with the use of single-exposure, DES soft tissue and conventional x-ray images compared with using a conventional x-ray image alone (results were statistically significant for 2 out of 5 reviewers; GRADE: Low). In one study, x-ray image reviewers reported an improvement in the visibility of the tips of lines and tubes (although these were visualized with the conventional x-ray image alone) in all patients and an improvement in the diagnostic confidence in 16 (57.1%) patients, with no difference in the time to review the images with the use of single-exposure, DES bone and soft tissue x-ray images plus the conventional x-ray image compared with using the conventional x-ray image alone, but the evidence is very uncertain (GRADE: Very low).The economic evidence review identified 1 costing study in the US setting. This analysis suggested adoption of single-exposure, DES x-ray detectors may lead to cost savings. However, this study was deemed not directly applicable to the Ontario setting. The cost-effectiveness of single-exposure, DES flat panel x-ray detectors is therefore unknown. Owing to the limited evidence on the impact of these detectors on short-term outcomes such as diagnostic accuracy and workflow, and long-term costs and health outcomes, we did not conduct a primary economic evaluation. Our budget impact analysis estimated that, for a typical community hospital, purchasing 3 detectors to retrofit existing x-ray machines would lead to an additional cost of $12,137 per institution. However, there is a large degree of uncertainty around the downstream costs and benefits of this technology.We interviewed 20 health care providers who had expertise with x-ray systems. Those who had the opportunity to interpret the x-ray images produced by a single-exposure, DES detector in a clinical setting were supportive of this technology and perceived an increase in confidence with diagnosing patients. Retrofitting existing x-ray systems to be compatible with the single-exposure, DES detector posed a challenge for operators as it was not a seamless process. Those who operated the retrofitted x-ray systems using the single-exposure, DES detector commented on issues related to workflow, including the physical specifications, connectivity, battery life, and maneuverability as barriers to use. Participants who did not have experience using the DES detector technology expressed uncertainty regarding the benefits compared to the alternative options currently in use in Ontario, such as image enhancing software, emerging artificial intelligence technology, and low-dose CT scanning. None of the users had experience with a fully integrated mobile x-ray system (i.e., a mobile x-ray system that did not require retrofitting to be compatible with the single-exposure, DES detector).

Conclusions: The use of single-exposure, DES flat panel x-ray detectors may lead to an improvement in the sensitivity and specificity to detect pulmonary nodule calcification compared with conventional x-ray, but the evidence is very uncertain for its effect on the visibility of the tips of lines and tubes, diagnostic confidence, and time to review the x-ray images compared with conventional x-ray. Evidence gaps include lack of evidence for the use of the technology for most populations and outcomes that we sought to evaluate. Due to limited clinical and economic evidence, the cost-effectiveness of single-exposure, DES flat panel x-ray detectors is currently unknown. We estimate that purchasing 3 detectors to retrofit with existing x-ray machines may lead to an additional cost of $12,137 per institution. Users of single-exposure, DES x-ray detectors who viewed and interpreted the images produced spoke positively about their experience with the technology and expressed an increase in confidence when making a diagnosis. Participants who operated the retrofitted single-exposure, DES x-ray detector commented on issues that negatively impacted their workflow. The experiences of providers with a fully integrated system are unknown at this time.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
单曝光,双能量减法平板x射线探测器:健康技术评估。
背景:在医学上,x射线被用来产生体内组织和结构的图像。x射线由源装置发射,穿过人体后,撞击探测器,探测器形成x射线穿过的组织和结构的图像。双能减法(DES) x射线系统利用不同能谱(能级)的辐射以及骨和软组织的差分吸收特性原理,在常规x射线图像之外产生单独的骨和软组织x射线图像。目的是尽量减少潜在的问题,解剖重叠与传统x线可能掩盖一些发现。单次曝光,DES平板x射线探测器除了使用单次x射线曝光产生DES骨骼和软组织x射线图像外,还产生传统的x射线图像。与传统x线相比,我们对成人单次暴露、DES数字平板x线探测器进行了健康技术评估,用于诊断肺炎、气胸和肺结节等适应症,并用于显示线和管。我们的评估包括对诊断准确性、对诊断信心的影响、患者管理和临床结果、公共资助技术的预算影响以及卫生保健提供者的经验、偏好和价值观的评估。方法:对临床证据进行系统的文献检索。我们使用QUADAS-C工具评估每个纳入研究的偏倚风险,并根据建议评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)工作组标准评估证据体的质量。我们对单次曝光DES平板x射线探测器的经济证据进行了系统的文献检索。由于这项技术的影响证据有限,我们没有进行初步的经济评估。我们分析了安大略省医院的单次暴露DES平板探测器的公共资助对预算的影响。为了了解单次曝光DES平板x射线探测器的潜在价值,我们采访了具有诊断成像专业知识的人员,包括放射科医生和其他医疗保健从业人员。结果:临床证据综述确定了2项符合条件的观察性研究,评估了单次暴露、DES平板x射线探测器生成DES骨骼和软组织x射线图像和常规x射线图像的使用。1项研究的结果表明,与单独使用常规x线图像相比,使用单次曝光、DES软组织和常规x线图像检测肺结节钙化的敏感性和特异性都有所提高(5名评论者中有2名结果具有统计学意义;等级:低)。在一项研究中,x射线图像审评者报告,所有患者的线和管尖端的可见性都有所改善(尽管这些都是单独使用常规x线图像时可见的),16名(57.1%)患者的诊断置信度有所提高,与单独使用常规x线图像相比,使用单次曝光、DES骨骼和软组织x线图像加常规x线图像审评图像的时间没有差异。但证据非常不确定(等级:非常低)。经济证据审查确定了1项美国环境下的成本研究。这一分析表明,采用单曝光DES x射线探测器可能会节省成本。然而,这项研究被认为不能直接适用于安大略省的情况。因此,单曝光DES平板x射线探测器的成本效益是未知的。由于关于这些检测器对诊断准确性和工作流程等短期结果以及长期成本和健康结果的影响的证据有限,我们没有进行初步的经济评估。我们的预算影响分析估计,对于一个典型的社区医院来说,购买3个探测器来改造现有的x光机将导致每个机构额外花费12,137美元。然而,该技术的下游成本和收益存在很大程度的不确定性。我们采访了20位具有x射线系统专业知识的卫生保健提供者。那些有机会在临床环境中解释由单次曝光DES探测器产生的x射线图像的人支持这项技术,并认为增加了诊断患者的信心。改造现有的x射线系统,使其与单曝光DES探测器兼容,这对操作人员来说是一个挑战,因为它不是一个无缝的过程。使用单曝光DES探测器操作改进x射线系统的人员评论了与工作流程相关的问题,包括物理规格、连接性、电池寿命和可操作性,这些都是使用的障碍。 没有使用DES探测器技术经验的参与者表示,与安大略省目前使用的替代方案(如图像增强软件、新兴人工智能技术和低剂量CT扫描)相比,DES探测器技术的益处不确定。没有一个用户有使用完全集成的移动x射线系统(即不需要改装以与单次曝光DES探测器兼容的移动x射线系统)的经验。结论:与常规x线相比,使用单次曝光的DES平板x线机可能会提高检测肺结节钙化的灵敏度和特异性,但与常规x线相比,其对线和管尖端的可见性、诊断置信度和检查x线图像时间的影响证据非常不确定。证据差距包括缺乏证据证明该技术对大多数人群的使用以及我们试图评估的结果。由于有限的临床和经济证据,单次暴露的成本效益,DES平板x射线探测器目前尚不清楚。我们估计,购买3个探测器来改造现有的x光机可能会导致每个机构增加$12,137的费用。使用单曝光DES x射线探测器的用户观看并解释了所产生的图像,他们积极地评价了他们使用该技术的经验,并表示在做出诊断时增加了信心。操作改进的单次曝光DES x射线探测器的参与者评论了对他们工作流程产生负面影响的问题。目前,完全集成系统的供应商的经验尚不清楚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series
Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Interferon-Gamma Release Assay Testing for Latent Tuberculosis Infection: A Health Technology Assessment. Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Health Technology Assessment. Single-Exposure, Dual-Energy Subtraction Flat Panel X-Ray Detectors: A Health Technology Assessment. Plasma-Based Comprehensive Genomic Profiling DNA Assays for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment. Level 2 Polysomnography for the Diagnosis of Sleep Disorders: A Health Technology Assessment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1