Detectability of catheters on bedside chest radiographs: Comparison between liquid crystal display and high-resolution cathode-ray tube monitors

Radiology

Volumn 234, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 611-616

  Scharitzer, Martina ^a   Prokop, Mathias ^a   Weber, Michael ^a   Fuchsjäger, Michael ^a   Oschatz, Elisabeth ^a   Schaefer Prokop, Cornelia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CATHETER; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FRIEDMAN TEST; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIGHT; LIQUID CRYSTAL; MALE; MONITOR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY; X RAY FILM;

AGED; CATHETERIZATION; DATA DISPLAY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; POINT-OF-CARE SYSTEMS; POLYMERS; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC;

EID: 12344299356     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2342031297     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Busch HP. Digital radiography for clinical applications. Eur Radiol 1997; 7:66-72.
2. Schaefer CM, Greene RE, Oestmann JW, et al. Digital storage phosphor imaging versus conventional film radiography in CT-documented chest disease. Radiology 1990; 174:207-210.
3. Dwyer SJ, Stewart BK, Sayre JW, et al. Performance characteristics and image fidelity of gray-scale monitors. RadioGraphics 1992; 12:765-772.
4. Otto D, Bernhardt TM, Rapp-Bernhardt U, et al. Subtle pulmonary abnormalities: detection on monitors with varying spatial resolutions and maximum luminance levels compared with detection on storage phosphor radiographic hard copies. Radiology 1998; 207:237-242.
5. Reiner B, Siegel E, Hooper F, et al. Variation of monitor luminance on radiologist productivity in the interpretation of skeletal radiographs using a picture archiving and communication system (abstr). J Digit Imaging 1997; 10 (3 suppl 1):176.
6. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ. Accuracy of interpretation of CT scans: comparing PACS monitor displays and hard-copy images. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 1407-1410.
7. Kundel HL, Gefter W, Aronchick J, et al. Accuracy of bedside chest hard-copy screen-film versus hard- and soft-copy computed radiographs in a medical intensive care unit: receiver operating characteristic analysis. Radiology 1997; 205: 859-863.
8. Roehrig H, Fan JH, Krupinski EA, et al. LCDs versus CRTs, a comparative performance evaluation (abstr). Radiology 2002; 225(P):186.
9. Barten PGJ, Contrast sensitivity of the human eye and its effects on image quality, Bellingham, Wash: International Society for Optical Engineering, 1999.
10. Pavlicek W, Owen JM, Peter MB. Active matrix liquid crystal displays for clinical imaging: comparison with cathode ray tube displays. J Digit Imaging 2000; 13: 155-161.
11. Roehrig H, Krupinski EA, Furukawa T. Evaluation of a flat CRT monitor for use in radiology. J Digit Imaging 2001; 14: 142-148.
12. Siegel EL, Reiner BJ. Comparison of the clinical performance of a high resolution active matrix LCD to a CRT monitor in the assessment of lung nodules using computed radiography images (abstr). Radiology 2002; 225(P):501.
13. Rogers DC, Johnstons RE, Pizer SM. Effect of ambient light on electronically displayed medical images as measured by luminance-discrimination thresholds. J Opt Soc Am A 1987; 4:976-983.
14. Flynn MJ, Badano A. Image quality degradation by light scattering in display devices. J Digit Imaging 1999; 12:50-59.
15. Klein HM, Stargardt A, Grehl T, Glaser KH, Gunther RW. Effect of ambient lighting on the diagnostic efficiency of display screen workplaces. Rofo 1994; 160:168-172. [German]
16. Haak R, Wicht MJ, Hellmich M, et al. Influence of room lighting on grey-scale perception with a CRT- and a TFT monitor display. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002; 31:193-197.
17. Krupinski E, Roehrig H, Furukawa T. Influence of film and monitor display luminance on observer performance and visual search. Acad Radiol 1999; 6: 411-418.