Viewing conditions for diagnostic images in three major Dublin hospitals: A comparison with WHO and CEC recommendations

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 76, Issue 902, 2003, Pages 94-97

  McCarthy, E ^a   Brennan, P C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BRIGHTNESS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; GENERAL HOSPITAL; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGING SYSTEM; IRELAND; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGICAL PROCEDURES; WARD; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

HOSPITALS, DISTRICT; IRELAND; LIGHTING; RADIOLOGY; RADIOLOGY DEPARTMENT, HOSPITAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; X-RAY FILM;

EID: 0037307004     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/92036272     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Abdullah BJJ. In the eyes of the beholder: What we see is not what we get. Br J Radiol 2001;74:675-6.
2. Johnston DA, Brennan PC. Reference dose levels for patients undergoing common diagnostic X-ray examinations in Irish hospitals. Br J Radiol 2000;73:396-402.
3. Brennan PC, Johnston D. Irish X-ray departments demonstrate varying levels of adherence to European guidelines on good radiographic technique. Br J Radiol 2002;75:243-8.
4. Commission of the European Communities. Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images. Working Document (2nd edn), XII/173/90. Brussels, Belgium: CEC, 1990.
5. Hartmann E, Stieve F-E. Quality control of radiographic illuminators and associated viewing equipment. In: Moores BM, Stieve FE, Eriskat H, Schibella H, editors. Report 18, Technical and Physical Parameters for Quality Assurance in Medical Diagnostic Radiology. Tolerances, Limiting Values and Appropriate Measuring Methods. London: British Institute of Radiology, 1989:135-7.
6. Overington I. Physiological conditions for the effective interpretation of radiographic images. In: Moores BM, Stieve FE, Eriskat H, Schibella H, editors. Report 18, Technical and Physical Parameters for Quality Assurance in Medical Diagnostic Radiology. Tolerances, Limiting Values and Appropriate Measuring Methods. London: British Institute of Radiology, 1989:129-35.
7. Alter A, Kargas GA, Kargas SA, Cameron JR, McDermott JC. The influence of ambient and viewbox light upon visual detection of low contrast targets in a radiograph. Invest Radiol 1982;17:402-6.
8. Abildgaard A, Notthellen JA. Increased contrast when viewing radiographic images. Radiology 1992;185:475-8.
9. WHO. Quality Assurance in Diagnostic Radiology. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation, 1982.
10. European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images. EUR 16260 EN. Brussels, Belgium: CEC, 1996.
11. Criteria for Acceptability of Radiological (Including Radiotherapy) and Nuclear Installations. Radiation Protection No. 91. Luxembourg: CEC, 1997.
12. Cooney P, Davis C, Chua JBY, Van Der Putten W, Malone JF. Survey of image viewing conditions for x-ray film. Radiat Prot Dosim 1995;57:305-8.
13. Guibelalde E, Vano E, Llorca AL. Quality assurance of viewing boxes: Proposal for establishing minimum requirements and results from a Spanish quality control programme. Br J Radiol 1990;63:564-7.
14. Baulm A. WHO-Training Workshop on Quality Control and Assurance in Diagnostic Radiologic. Practical Exercises: World Health Organisation Report. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 1982.
15. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Standards for the Performance of Radionuclide Imaging Devices. Publication No. NU-1-1980. Washington DC: NEMA, 1980.
16. Krupinski E, Roehrig H, Furukawa T. Influence of film and monitor display luminance on observer performance and visual search. Acad Radiol 1999;6:411-8.
17. Patel N, Rushton VE, Macfarlane TV, Horner K. The influence of viewing conditions on radiological diagnosis of periapical inflammation. Br Dent J 2000;189:40-2.