Practical assessment of the display performance of radiology workstations

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 80, Issue 952, 2007, Pages 256-260

  Thompson, David P ^a   Koller, C J ^a   Eatough, J P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF NORTH MIDLANDS NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL IMAGING; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE QUALITY; LUMINANCE; MONITOR; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIATION RESPONSE; RADIOLOGY DEPARTMENT; STANDARDIZATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; UNITED STATES;

COMPUTER TERMINALS; DATA DISPLAY; ENGLAND; HUMANS; LIGHTING; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RADIOLOGY DEPARTMENT, HOSPITAL; RADIOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEMS; TECHNOLOGY, RADIOLOGIC;

EID: 34347383566     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/82769410     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999. SI No. 3232 London: HMSO, 1999.
2. Brettle DS, Bacon SE. A method for verified access when using soft copy display. Br J Radiol 2005;78:749-51.
3. NEMA. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Part 14: Grayscale standard display function. Virginia: National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2003.
4. Eichelberg M, Riesmeier J, Kleber K, Holstein J, Oosterwijk H, Jensch P. Consistency of soft copy and hardcopy: preliminary experiences with the new DICOM extensions for image display. http://wuerlim.wustl.edu/mesa/ software/consistency/display-consistency.pdf.
5. Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty D, Compton K, Cornelius C, Corrigan K, et al. Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems. Report of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 18, Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, WI, AAPM On-Line Report No. 03, April 2005.
6. The Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, College of Radiographers, National Radiological Protection Board. Recommended standards for the routine performance testing of diagnostic X-ray imaging systems, IPEM Report No. 91. York: IPEM, 2005.
7. American College of Radiology. ACR Standards for Teleradiology. In: Standards 2001-2001. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2001: 9-17.
8. Wade C, Brennan PC. Assessment of monitor conditions for the display of radiological diagnostic images and ambient lighting. Br J Radiol 2004;77:465-71.
9. Goo JM, Choi JY, Im JG, Lee HJ, Chung MJ, Han D, et al. Effect of display monitor luminance and ambient light on observer performance in soft copy reading of digital chest radiographs. Radiology 2004;232:762-6.
10. Fuchsager MH, Schaefer-Prokop CM, Eisenhuber E, Homolka P, Weber M, Funovics MA, et al. Impact of ambient light and window settings on the detectability of catheters on soft-copy display of chest radiographs at bedside. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:1415-21.
11. Wang J, Gray JE. Detection of small low-contrast objects in mammography: effect of viewbox masking and luminance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;170:105-8.
12. Kimme-Smith C, Haus AG, DeBruhl N, Bassett LW. Effects of ambient light and view box luminance on the detection of calcifications in mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168:775-8.
13. Commission of the European Communities. Quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. Working Document (2nd edn), XII/173/90, Brussels, Belgium: CEC, 1990.
14. Hartmann E, Stieve FE. 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: The British Institute of Radiology, 1989: 135-7.
15. CCFL Characteristics. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. 2005. http://www.maxim-ic.com/appnotes.cfm/appnote_number/3528.