Comparison of 3MP medical-grade to 1MP office-grade LCD monitors in mammographic diagnostic and perceptual performance

Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology

Volumn 55, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 153-162

  Ong, Aaron H J ^a,b   Pitman, Alexander G ^f,i   Tan, Shu Yi ^a   Gledhill, Samuel ^b   Hennessy, Oliver ^b   Lui, Belinda ^b   Lemish, Wayne ^c   Tauro, Paul ^g   Styles, Colin ^d   Pun, Emma ^d   Waugh, John ^h   Padmanabhan, Meenakshi ^e   Lee, Allan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b ST VINCENT S HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^c Freemasons Day Procedure Centre Imaging   (Australia)

^d PETER MACCALLUM CANCER CENTRE   (Australia)

^e BreastScreen Victoria   (Australia)

^f Lake Imaging   (Australia)

^g NORTHERN HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^h Radiology Department   (Australia)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (Australia)

Author keywords

breast cancer; mammography; megapixel; microcalcifications; monitors

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TIME;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DATA DISPLAY; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIQUID CRYSTALS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RADIOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 79955072731     PISSN: 17549477     EISSN: 17549485     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-9485.2011.02245.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Garcia M, Jemal A, Ward EM, et al,. Global Cancer Facts & Figures 2007. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, 2007.
2. Steward B, Kleihues PE,. World Cancer Report. IARC Press, Lyon, France, 2003.
3. Morgan MP, Cooke MM, McCarthy GM,. Microcalcifications associated with breast cancer: an epiphenomenon or biologically significant feature of selected tumours? J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2005; 10: 181-7. (Pubitemid 41031007)
4. Tabar L, Dean PB, Tot T,. Teaching Atlas of Mammography, 3rd edn. Thieme, New York, 2001.
5. Kamitani T, Yabuuchi H, Soeda H, et al,. Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast screen on digital mammograms: comparison among hard copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5-megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 1365-71. (Pubitemid 46691968)
6. Averbukh AN, Channin DS, Homhual P,. Comparison of human observer performance of contrast detail detection across multiple liquid crystal displays. J Digit Imaging 2005; 18: 66-77. (Pubitemid 40873634)
7. Doyle AJ, Fevre JL, Anderson GD,. Personal computer versus workstation display: observer performance in detection of wrist fractures on digital radiographs. Radiology 2005; 237: 872-7. (Pubitemid 41636375)
8. 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: 148-50. (Pubitemid 39517323)
9. Langer S, Fetterly K, Mandrekar J, et al,. ROC study of four LCD displays under typical medical center lighting conditions. J Digit Imaging 2005; 19 (1): 30-40. (Pubitemid 43384294)
10. Brem MH, Bohner C, Brenning A, et al,. Evaluation of low cost computer monitors for the detection of cervical spine injuries in the emergency room: an observer confidence-based study. Emerg Med J 2006; 23: 850-3. (Pubitemid 44696839)
11. Geijer H, Geijer M, Forsberg L, Kheddache S, Sund P,. Comparison of color LCD and medical-grade monochrome LCD displays in diagnostic radiology. J Digit Imaging 2007; 20: 114-21. (Pubitemid 46789161)
12. Scharitzer M, Prokop M, Weber M, Fuchsjager M, Oschatz E, Schaefer-Prokop C,. Detectability of catheters on bedside chest radiographs: comparison between liquid crystal display and high-resolution cathode-ray tube monitors. Radiology 2005; 234: 611-6. (Pubitemid 40139938)
13. 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: 237-42. (Pubitemid 28168690)
14. 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. (Pubitemid 30109477)
15. Pitman A, Gledhill S, Cawson J, et al,. Radiologist memory performance over time: 'memoriser' type memory shows a time related decline. JMIRO 2008; 52: A45.
16. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 10. StataCorp, College Station, TX, 2007.
17. Berlin L,. Does the 'missed' radiographic diagnosis constitute malpractice? Radiology 1977; 123: 523-7. (Pubitemid 8285410)
18. Pitman AG,. Perceptual error and the culture of open disclosure in Australian radiology. Australas Radiol 2006; 50: 206-11. (Pubitemid 43823192)
19. Tuddenham WJ,. Visual search, image organisation and reader error in roentgen diagnosis: studies of the psychophysiology of roentgen image perception. Radiology 1963; 78: 694-704.
20. Garland LH,. Studies on the accuracy of diagnostic procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1959; 82: 25-38.
21. Ruschin M, Hemdal B, Anderson I, et al,. Threshold pixel size for shape determination of microcalcifications in digital mammography: A pilot study. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005; 114: 415-25.
22. Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, Sechopoulos I, D'orsi CJ,. Detection of simulated microcalcifications in a phantom with digital mammography: effect of pixel size. Radiology 2007; 244: 130-7. (Pubitemid 46981966)
23. Chan HP, Helvie MA, Petrick N, et al,. Observer performance study of the effects of pixel size on the characterization of malignant and benign microcalcifications. Acad Radiol 2001; 8: 454-66. (Pubitemid 32694818)