Choosing a radiology workstation: Technical and clinical considerations

Radiology

Volumn 242, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 671-682

  Krupinski, Elizabeth A ^a   Kallergi, Maria ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BLURRED VISION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER INTERFACE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTER SYSTEM; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIGITAL IMAGING AND COMMUNICATIONS IN MEDICINE; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; HEADACHE; HOSPITAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE PROCESSING; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; PICTURE ARCHIVING AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOLOGIST; RADIOLOGY DEPARTMENT; RATING SCALE; REVIEW; STAFF TRAINING; TASK PERFORMANCE;

DATA DISPLAY; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; MINICOMPUTERS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RADIOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEMS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 33847206055     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2423051403     Document Type: Review

References (73)

1. Siegel EL, Kolodner RM. Filmless radiology. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 1999.
2. Dreyer KJ, Mehta A, Thrall J. PACS: a guide to the digital revolution. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 2002.
3. Kundel HL, Nodine CF. Interpreting chest radiographs without visual search. Radiology 1975;116:527-532.
4. Nodine CF, Kundel HL. The cognitive side of visual search in radiology. In: O'Regan JK, Levy-Schoen A, eds. Eye movements: from physiology to cognition. North-Holland: Elsevier Science, 1987;573-582.
5. Oestmann JW, Greene R, Kushner DC, Bourgouin PM, Linetsky L, Llewellyn HJ. Lung lesions: correlation between viewing time and detection. Radiology 1988;166:451-453.
6. Krupinski EA. Visual search of mammographic images: influence of lesion subtlety. Acad Radiol 2005;12:965-969.
7. Mello-Thoms C, Hardesty L, Sumkin J, et al. Effects of lesion conspicuity on visual search in mammogram reading. Acad Radiol 2005;12:830-840.
8. Arenson RL, Chakraborty DP, Seshadri SB, Kundel HL. The digital imaging workstation. Radiology 1990;176:303-315.
9. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Krupinski EA. Digital radiographic image presentation and display. In: Samei E, Flynn MJ, eds. 2003 Syllabus: categorical course in diagnostic radiology physics-advances in digital radiography. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2003;79-89.
10. Krupinski EA. Medical image perception issues for PACS deployment. Semin Roentgenol 2003;38:231-243.
11. Shneiderman B. Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction. 3rd ed. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1998.
12. Moise A, Atkins S. Design requirements for radiology workstations. J Digit Imaging 2004;17:92-99.
13. Siegel E, Reiner B, Abiri M, et al. The filmless radiology reading room: a survey of established picture archiving and communication system sites. J Digit. Imaging 2000;13:22-23.
14. Shtern F, Winfield, D, Behlen F, et al. Report of the Working Group on Digital Mammography: digital displays and workstation design. Acad Radiol 1999;6(suppl 4): S195-S219.
15. Kallergi M, Clarke LP, Qian W, et al. Interpretation of calcifications in screen/film, digitized, and wavelet-enhanced, monitor displayed mammograms: a receiver operating characteristic study. Acad Radiol 1996;3(4):285-293.
16. Chan HP, Sahiner B, Petrick N, Lam KL, Helvie MA. Effects of pixel size on classification of microcalcifications on digitized mammograms. In: Loew MK, Harison KM, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 1996-image processing. Vol 2710. Bellingham, Wash: International Society for Optical Engineering, 1996;30-41.
17. Seibert JA, Philipow LJ, Andriole KP. Practical digital imaging and PACS. AAPM Med Phys Monograph No. 25. College Park, Md: American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 2000.
18. Chakrabarti K, Thomas JA, Kaczmarek RV, Waynant RW, Loscocco MF. Optimization of viewing conditions and phantom image quality evaluations on GE DMR and full-field digital mammography systems. J Digit Imaging 2000;13:226-227.
19. Krupinski EA, Johnson J, Roehrig H, Nafziger J, Fan J, Lubin J. Use of a human visual system model to predict observer performance with CRT vs LCD display of images. J Digit Imaging 2004;17:258-263.
20. Gohel HJ, Kallergi M, Vossberg M, Gavrielides MA, Clarke LP, Thomas JA. Workstation interface for ROC studies in digital mammography. In: Kim Y, ed. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 1997-image display. Vol 3031. Bellingham, Wash: International Society for Optical Engineering, 1997; 440-447.
21. Chandrasekhar R, Attikiouzel Y. A graphical interface for viewing mammograms interactively. Proceedings of the First Joint BMES/EMBS Conference Serving Humanity, Advancing Technology, Atlanta Ga, October 13-16, 1999.
22. Peer S, Peer R, Walcher M, Pohl M, Jaschke W. Comparative reject analysis in conventional film-screen and digital storage phosphor radiography. Eur Radiol 1999;9:1693-1996.
23. American College of Radiology. ACR technical standard for digital image data management. American College of Radiology. http://www.acr.org/s_acr/bin. asp?CID=541&DID =12210&DOC=FILE.PDF. Published January 1, 2002. Updated 2006. Accessed August 12, 2005.
24. American College of Radiology. ACR technical standard for teleradiology. American College of Radiology. http://www.acr.org/s_acr /bin.asp?CID= 541&DID=12292&DOC =FILE.PDF. Published 1994. Updated 2006. Accessed August 12, 2005.
25. American Association of Physicists in Medicine task group 18. Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems. Duke Advanced Imaging Laboratories. http://deckard.mc.duke.edu/~samei/tg18. Published October 16, 2001. Updated January 10, 2006. Accessed August 12, 2005.
26. Roehrig H. The monochrome cathode ray tube display and its performance. In: Kim Y, Horii SC, eds. Handbook of medical imaging. Vol 3. Display and PACS. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE Press, 2000; 155-220.
27. Samei E, Wright SL. Luminance and contrast performance of liquid crystal displays for mammographic applications. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2004;3:429-436.
28. Samei E, Rowberg A, Avraham E, Cornelius C. Toward clinically relevant: standardization of image quality. J Digit Imaging 2004;17:271-278.
29. Jung H, Kim HJ, Kang WS, et al. Assessment of flat panel LCD primary class display performance based on AAPM TG 18 acceptance protocol. Med Phys 2004;31(7):2155-2164.
30. Samei E, Seibert JA, Andriole K, et al. AAPM/RSNA tutorial on equipment selection: PACS equipment overview-general guidelines for purchasing and acceptance testing of PACS equipment. RadioGraphics 2004;24:313-334.
31. Badano A. AAPM/RSNA tutorial on equipment selection: PACS equipment overview-display systems. RadioGraphics 2004;24:879-889.
32. Krupinski EA, Roehrig H. Pulmonary nodule detection and visual search: P45 and P104 monochrome versus color monitor displays. Acad Radiol 2002;9:638-645.
33. Lehmkuhl L, Mulzer J, Teichgraeber U, Gillessen C, Ehrenstein T, Ricke J. Evaluation of the display quality of different modalities in digital radiology [in German]. Rofo 2004;176:1031-1038.
34. Sim L, Manthey K, Esdaile P, Benson M. Comparison of computer display monitors for computed radiography diagnostic application in a radiology PACS. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2004;27:148-150.
35. Krupinski EA, Johnson J, Roehrig H, Nafziger J, Lubin J. On-axis and off-axis viewing of images on CRT displays and LCDs: observer performance and vision model predictions. Acad Radiol 2005;12:957-964.
36. Fifadara DH, Averbukh A, Channin DS, Badano A. Effect of viewing angle on luminance and contrast for a five-million-pixel monochrome display and a nine-million-pixel color liquid crystal display. J Digit Imaging 2004;17:264-270.
37. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Strategic document: WG 11 (display function standard). http://medical.nema.org /dicom/2004.html. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Published 2004. Updated November 28, 2005. Accessed August 12, 2005.
38. Krupinski EA, Roettrig H. The influence of a perceptually linearized display on observer performance and visual search. Acad Radiol 2000;7:8-13.
39. 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.
40. Vertinsky T, Forster B. Prevalence of eye strain among radiologists: influence of viewing variables on symptoms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:681-686.
41. Moise A. Atkins S. Designing better radiology workstations: impact of two user interfaces on interpretation errors and user satisfaction. J Digit Imaging 2005;18:109-115.
42. Krupinski EA, Lund PJ. Differences in time to interpretation for evaluation of bone radiographs with monitor and film viewing. Acad Radiol 1997;4:177-182.
43. Krupinski EA, Radvany M, Levy A, et al. Enhanced visualization processing: effect on workflow. Acad Radiol 2001;8:1127-1133.
44. Thrall JH. Reinventing radiology in the digital age. II. New directions and new stakeholder value. Radiology 2005;237(1):15-18.
45. Langer S. Radiology speech recognition: workflow, integration, and productivity issues. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2002;31:95-104.
46. Gutierrez AJ, Mullins ME, Novelline RA. Impact of PACS and voice-recognition reporting on the education of radiology residents. J Digit Imaging 2005;18:100-108.
47. Cavagna E, Berletti R, Schiavon F, Scarsi B, Barbato G. Optimized delivery radiological reports: applying Six Sigma methodology to a radiology department. Radiol Med (Torino) 2003;105:205-214.
48. Bramson RT, Bramson RA. Overcoming obstacles to work-changing technology such as PACS and voice recognition. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1727-1730.
49. Thomas JA, Chakrabarti K, Kaczmarek RV, Loscocco MF, Gaskill J. Preference studies of workstation monitor performance. Presented at the fifth International Workshop orr Digital Mammography, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, June 11-14, 2000.
50. Weiss DL, Johnson TB, Scopelliti J, Wood GC. Minimizing distraction using PACS with alternative user interface devices. Presented at the 2005 annual meeting of the Society for Computer Applications in Radiology, Orlando Fla, June 2-5, 2005.
51. Morgan MB, Branstetter BF, Lionetti DM, Chang PJ. Flying blind: using a digital dashboard to navigate a complex PACS environment. Presented at the 2005 annual meeting of the Society for Computer Applications in Radiology, Orlando Fla, June 2-5, 2005.
52. Yeluri V, Herfkens R, Morita M, Mahesh P. Input devices to economically navigate through large CT exams. Presented at the 2005 annual meeting of the Society for Computer Applications in Radiology, Orlando Fla, June 2-5, 2005.
53. Sherbondy AJ, Holmlund D, Rubin GD, Schraedley PK, Winograd T, Napel S. Alternative input devices for efficient navigation of large CT angiography data sets. Radiology 2005;234(2):391-398.
54. Sistrom CL. Conceptual approach for the design of radiology reporting interfaces: the talking template. J Digit. Imaging 2005;18:176-187.
55. Ruess L, O'Connor SC, Cho KH, et al. Carpal tunnel syndrome and cubital tunnel syndrome: work-related musculoskeletal disorders in four symptomatic radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:37-42.
56. U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Organization: OSHA. Computer workstations. U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/ etools /computerworkstations/index.html. Published December 10, 2004. Accessed August 15, 2005.
57. Parisot CR. Network and integration quality control. In: Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Carrino JA, eels. Quality assurance: meeting the challenges in the digital enterprise. Great Falls, Va: Society for Computer Applications in Radiology, 2005; 83-92.
58. Thrall JH. Reinventing radiology in the digital age. I. The all-digital department. Radiology 2005;236(2):382-385.
59. Seibert JA. Breast disease diagnosis for the future: a forum to share practical needs for integration. http://www.scamet.net/onsite/pdf /DigitalForum_05_Seibert.pdf. Published 1999. Accessed August 18, 2005.
60. Tucker DM. Data management and archive systems. In: Seibert JA, Philipow LJ, Andriole KP, eds. Practical digital imaging and PACS. AAPM Monograph No. 25. College Park, Md: American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 2000;25:541-553.
61. Kallergi M, Lucier BJ, Berman CG, et al. High-performance wavelet compression method for marnniography: localization response operating characteristic evaluation. Radiology 2006;238(1):62-73.
62. Hangiandreou NJ. Image compression and encryption. In: Seibert JA, Philipow LJ, Andriole KP, eds. Practical digital imaging and PACS AAPM Monograph No. 25. College Park, Md: American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 2000; 369-402.
63. Siegel EL, Reiner B. Image workflow. In: Dreyer KJ, Mehta A, Thrall JH, eds. PACS: a guide to the digital revolution. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 2002; 161-190.
64. Harisinghani MG, Blake MA, Saksena M, et al. Importance and effects of altered workplace ergonomics in modern radiology suites. RadioGraphics 2004;24:615-627.
65. Prabhu SP, Gandhi S, Goddard PR. Ergonomics of digital imaging. Br J Radiol 2005;78:582-586.
66. Thrall JH. Reinventing radiology in the digital age. III. Facilities, work process, and job responsibilities. Radiology 2005;237(3):790-793.
67. Roehrig H, Krupinski EA, Furukawa T. Evaluation of a flat CRT monitor for use in radiology. J Digit Imaging 2001;14:142-148.
68. Rau G, Trispel S. Ergonomic design aspects in interaction between man and technical systems in medicine. Med Prog Technol 1982;9:153-159.
69. Ratib O, Valentino DJ, McCoy MJ, Balhona JA, Amato CL, Boots K. Computer-aided design and modeling of workstations and radiology reading rooms for the new millennium. RadioGraphics 2000;20:1807-1816.
70. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Erickson BJ. Decision support in the digital medical enterprise. Great Falls, Va: Society for Computer Applications in Radiology, 2005.
71. Krupinski EA, Evanoff M, Ovitt T, Standen JR, Chu TX, Johnson J. Influence of image processing on chest radiograph interpretation and decision changes. Acad Radiol 1998;5:79-85.
72. Krupinski EA, Roehrig H, Dallas W. Fan J. Compensating for display deficiencies when displaying softcopy mammograms. In: Eckstein MP, ed. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2005-image perception, observer performance, and technology assessment. Vol 5749. Bellingham, Wash: International Society for Optical Engineering, 2005; 394-400.
73. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Carrino JA. Quality assurance: meeting the challenges in the digital enterprise. Great Falls, Va: Society for Computer Applications in Radiology, 2005.