Personal computer versus workstation display: Observer performance in detection of wrist fractures on digital radiographs

Radiology

Volumn 237, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 872-877

  Doyle, Anthony J ^a   Le Fevre, James ^a   Anderson, Graeme D ^a  

^a MIDDLEMORE HOSPITAL   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGE DISPLAY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MICROCOMPUTER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFERENCE VALUE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; ROC CURVE; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; WRIST FRACTURE;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; FRACTURES, BONE; HUMANS; MALE; MICROCOMPUTERS; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEMS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; WRIST INJURIES;

EID: 27744586806     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2373041439     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Kolodny GM, Raptopolous V, Simon M, et al. A low-cost, full-function picture archiving and communication system using standard PC hardware and the traditional 4-over-4 display format. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:591-594.
2. Wu TC, Lee SK, Peng CH, Wen CH, Huang SK. An economical, personal computer-based picture archiving and communication system. RadioGraphics 1999;19:523-530.
3. Parasyn A, Hanson RM, Peat JK, De Silva M. A comparison between digital images viewed on a picture archiving and communication system diagnostic workstation and on a PC-based remote viewing system by emergency physicians. J Digit Imaging 1998;11:45-49.
4. Xu Z, Yamauchi K, Ikeda M, Yang S, Hasegawa Y. Evaluation of a PC-based teleconferencing system for reading chest radiographs. J Telemed Telecare 1999;5:122-125.
5. Bancroft LW, Berquist TH, Morin RL, Pietan JH, Knudsen JM, Williams HJ Jr. Fracture interpretation using electronic presentation: a comparison. J Digit Imaging 2000;13:13-18.
6. Ricke J, Hanninen EL, Zielinski C, et al. Shortcomings of low-cost imaging systems for viewing computed radiographs. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2000;24:25-32.
7. Doyle AJ, Gunn ML, Gamble GD, Zhang M. Personal computer-based PACS display system: comparison with a dedicated PACS workstation for review of computed radiographic images in rheumatoid arthritis. Acad Radiol 2002;9:646-653.
8. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992;27:723-731.
9. O'Connor PJ, Davies AG, Fowler RC, et al. Reporting requirements for skeletal digital radiography: comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy presentation. Radiology 1998; 207:249-254.
10. 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.
11. Krupinski EA, Roehrig H. Pulmonary nodule detection and visual search: P45 and P104 monochrome versus color monitor displays. Acad Radiol 2002;9:638-645.
12. Krupinski E, Johnson J, Roehrig H, Lubin J. Using a human visual system model to optimize soft-copy mammography display: influence of display phosphor. Acad Radiol 2003;10:161-166.
13. Herron JM, Bender TM, Campbell WL, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, Gur D. Effects of luminance and resolution on observer performance with chest radiographs. Radiology 2000;215:169-174.
14. 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.
15. Jonsson A, Laurin S, Karner G, et al. Spatial resolution requirements in digital radiography of scaphoid fractures: an ROC analysis. Acta Radiol 1996;37:555-560.