Literature DB >> 14534808

Diagnostic performance of liquid crystal and cathode-ray-tube monitors in brain computed tomography.

Gerald Pärtan1, Rudolf Mayrhofer, Michael Urban, Manfred Wassipaul, Ludwig Pichler, Walter Hruby.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate feasibility of reporting brain CT examinations on liquid crystal display (LCD) flat-screen monitors vs state-of-the-art cathode-ray-tube (CRT) monitors. Ninety-five brain CT examinations of 95 patients were displayed on Picture archiving and communications system (PACS) workstations equipped either with a dedicated medical imaging LCD colour monitor or on a high-resolution CRT which is used for routine reporting of CT, MRI and digital radiography images in our institution. Fifty cases were negative and 45 cases were positive for early brain infarction (EBI), the latter being defined by a combination of one or more signs: dense artery; hypodensity of brain parenchyma; and local brain swelling verified by control scans. Ten radiologists had to rate presence or absence of EBI on a five-point scale. Ratings were evaluated by CORROC2 ROC software and areas under the ROC curve (A(z)) were computed. Significance of differences between the two viewing conditions were evaluated with Wilcoxon test. Mean A(z) of the ten observers was 0.7901 with LCD vs 0.7695 with CRT which did not show statistical significance (p=0.2030). In the setting investigated, reporting of CT studies from high-performance LCD monitors seems feasible without significant detriment to diagnostic performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14534808     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-003-1822-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  19 in total

1.  Year 2000: status of picture archiving and digital imaging in European hospitals.

Authors:  K Foord
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Active matrix liquid crystal displays for clinical imaging: comparison with cathode ray tube displays.

Authors:  W Pavlicek; J M Owen; M B Peter
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Elodia B Cole; Emily O Kistner; Keith E Muller; Bradley M Hemminger; Mary L Brown; R Eugene Johnston; Cherie M Kuzmiak; M Patricia Braeuning; Rita I Freimanis; Mary Scott Soo; J A Baker; Ruth Walsh
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Sample size tables for receiver operating characteristic studies.

Authors:  N A Obuchowski
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Why and how is soft copy reading possible in clinical practice?

Authors:  T Mertelmeier
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  The effect of 10 : 1 compression and soft copy interpretation on the chest radiographs of premature neonates with reference to their possible application in teleradiology.

Authors:  S B Parisi; G T Mogel; R Dominguez; H Dao; T J Cramer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Reporting requirements for skeletal digital radiography: comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy presentation.

Authors:  P J O'Connor; A G Davies; R C Fowler; D J Lintott; R F Bury; G J Parkin; D Martinez; A Saifuddin; A R Cowen
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Interpretation time of serial chest CT examinations with stacked-metaphor workstation versus film alternator.

Authors:  D V Beard; P L Molina; K E Muller; K M Denelsbeck; B M Hemminger; J R Perry; M P Braeuning; D H Glueck; W D Bidgood; M Mauro
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  [Findings of digital intensive or bed lung radiographs at the monitor vs. hard copy: a clinical ROC study].

Authors:  G Pärtan; H Mosser; A Tekusch; M Urban; I Augustin; W Hruby
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  1994-10

10.  [Filmless magnetic resonance tomography. Advantages and disadvantages in comparison with film reports].

Authors:  F Vorbeck; F al-Zayer; B Jung; M Breitenseher; H Imhof
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 0.635

View more
  16 in total

1.  Comparison of liquid crystal versus cathode ray tube display for the detection of simulated chest lesions.

Authors:  Elisabeth Oschatz; Mathias Prokop; Martina Scharitzer; Michael Weber; Csilla Balassy; Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-09-08       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Development and evaluation of a new gray-scale test pattern to adjust gradients of thoracic CT imaging.

Authors:  M Yamaguchi; H Fujita; M Uemura; Y Asai; H Wakae; M Ishifuro
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-04-02       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Effect of greyscale liquid crystal displays of different resolutions on observer performance during detection of small solitary pulmonary nodules.

Authors:  J Yin; Q Guo; W Zhang; H Su; J Zhang; Y Yue; C Ding; A Lin; Y Wang; H Wang
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  The influence of liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors on observer performance for the detection of nodular lesions on chest radiographs.

Authors:  H Usami; M Ikeda; T Ishigaki; H Fukushima; K Shimamoto
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-11-12       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Psychophysical analysis of monitor display functions affecting observer diagnostic performance of CT image on liquid crystal display monitors.

Authors:  M Yamaguchi; H Fujita; Y Asai; M Uemura; Y Ookura; M Matsumoto; T Johkoh
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-08-16       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  A computer-simulated liver phantom (virtual liver phantom) for multidetector computed tomography evaluation.

Authors:  Yoshinori Funama; Kazuo Awai; Osamu Miyazaki; Yoshiharu Nakayama; Da Liu; Taiga Goto; Yasuyuki Yamashita; Shinichi Hori
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-10-20       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Optimization of reading conditions for flat panel displays.

Authors:  J A Thomas; K Chakrabarti; R V Kaczmarek; A Maslennikov; C A Mitchell; A Romanyukha
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.056

8.  ROC analysis for diagnostic accuracy of fracture by using different monitors.

Authors:  Zhigang Liang; Kuncheng Li; Xiaolin Yang; Xiangying Du; Jiabin Liu; Xin Zhao; Xiangdong Qi
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.056

9.  Comparison of color LCD and medical-grade monochrome LCD displays in diagnostic radiology.

Authors:  Håkan Geijer; Mats Geijer; Lillemor Forsberg; Susanne Kheddache; Patrik Sund
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 4.056

10.  A filmless radiology teaching conference system for pertinent displaying and image searching.

Authors:  Katsumi Abe; Mitsuhiro Narata; Ikue Tanaka; Motoichiro Takahashi; Akihito Igarashi; Takahiro Sasaki; Kazuya Matsuyama; Naokaz Tohi; Shigeru Kosuda
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 4.056

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.