Flat-panel display (LCD) versus high-resolution gray-scale display (CRT) for chest radiography: An observer preference study

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 184, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 752-756

  Balassy, Csilla ^a   Prokop, Mathias ^a,b   Weber, Michael ^a   Sailer, Johannes ^a   Herold, Christian J ^a   Schaefer Prokop, Cornelia ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^c ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISPLAY SYSTEM; GRAY SCALE ECHOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIQUID CRYSTAL; OBSERVER BIAS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RANK SUM TEST; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER TERMINAL; CONSUMER; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

COMPUTER TERMINALS; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 16244423301     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.3.01840752     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Brill PW, Winchester P, Cahill P. Computed radiography in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units: a comparison of 2.5 K × 2 K soft-copy images vs digital hard-copy film. Pediatr Radiol 1996;26:333-336
2. Fajardo LL, Hillman BJ, Pond GD, Carmody RF, Johnson JE, Ferrell WR. Detection of pneumothorax: comparison of digital and conventional chest imaging. AJR 1989;152:474-480
3. Kehler M, Albrechtsson U, Andresdottir A, Larusdottir H, Lundin A. Accuracy of digital radiography using stimulable phosphor for diagnosis of pneumothorax. Acta Radiol 1990;31:47-52
4. Don S, Cohen MD, Kruger RA. Volume detection threshold: quantitative comparison of computed radiography and screen-film radiography in detection of pneumothoraces in animal model that simulates the neonate. Radiology 1995;194:727-730
5. O'Connor PJ, Davies AG, Fowler RC. Reporting requirements for skeletal digital radiography: comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy presentation. Radiology 1998;207:249-254
6. Kundel HL, Polansky M, Dalinka MK. Reliability of soft-copy versus hard-copy interpretation of emergency department radiographs: a prototype study. AJR 2001;177:525-528
7. MacMahon H, Metz CE, Doi K, Kim T, Giger ML, Chan HP. Digital chest radiography: effect on diagnostic accuracy of hard copy, conventional video, and reversed gray scale video display formats. Radiology 1988;168:669-673
8. Goodman LR, Foley WD, Wilson CR, Rimm AA, Lawson TL. Digital and conventional chest images: observer performance with Film Digital Radiography Systems. Radiology 1986;158:27-33
9. Krupinski EA, Maloney K, Bessen SC. Receiver operating characteristic evaluation of computer display of adult portable chest radiographs. Invest Radiol 1994;29:141-146
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[2 suppl 1]: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. Roehrig H, Fau J, Krupinski EA. LCDs versus CRTs: a comparative performance evaluation. (abstr) Radiology 2002;225(P):186
13. Barten PGJ. Physical model for the contrast sensitivity of the human eye. Proc SPIE 1992;1666:57-72
14. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence, Earlbaum Associates, 1988
15. Mertelmeier T. Why and how is soft copy reading possible in clinical practice? J Digit Imaging 1999;12:3-11
16. Steckel RJ, Batra P, Johnson S. Comparison of hard- and soft-copy digital chest images with different matrix sizes for managing coronary care unit patients. AJR 1995;164:837-841
17. Razavi M, Sayre JW, Taira RK. Receiver operating characteristic study of chest radiographs in children: digital hard-copy film vs 2K × 2K soft-copy images. AJR 1992;158:443-448
18. Cohen MD, Katz BP, Kalasiniski LA, White SJ, Smith JA, Long B. Digital imaging with a photo-stimulable phosphor in the chest of newborns. Radiology 1991;181:829-832
19. Kronemer KA, Don S, Luker GD, Hildebolt C. Soft-copy versus hard-copy interpretation of voiding cystoureterography in neonates, infants, and children. AJR 1999;172:791-793
20. Otto D, Bernhardt TM, Rapp-Bernhardt U. 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
21. Graf B, Simon U, Eickmeyer F, Fiedler V. 1K versus 2K monitor: a clinical alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic study of observer performance using pulmonary nodules. AJR 2000;174:1067-1074
22. Fuchsjaeger MH, Eisenhuber E, Strasser GR, Funovics MA, Prokop M, Schaefer-Prokop CM. Impact of ambient light and windowing on detectability of catheters in soft copy display of bedside chest studies. (abstr) Radiology 2001;217(P):549
23. Haak R, Wicht MJ, Hellmich M, Nowak G, Noack MJ. Influence of room lighting on grey-scale perception with a CRT- and a TFT monitor display. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002;31:193-197
24. Badano A, Flynn MJ, Kanicki J. Accurate small-spot luminance measurements. Displays 2002;23:177-182
25. 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 radiographic images. (abstr) Radiology 2002;225(P):501