Literature DB >> 15365756

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

Elisabeth Oschatz1, Mathias Prokop, Martina Scharitzer, Michael Weber, Csilla Balassy, Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop.   

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to compare the detection performance of a cathode ray tube (CRT) monitor versus a liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor for simulated subtle pulmonary lesions. Ten templates containing simulated lung lesions were superimposed on an anthropomorphic chest phantom. Posteroanterior radiographs were obtained using flat panel technology and were displayed on a CRT and an LCD monitor. Image processing and reading conditions were equivalent for both softcopy displays. Five observers assessed lesion detectability using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) methodology. A multivariate test (Pillai trace) was used to test the significance of differences (P<0.05). The multivariate test revealed significantly different detection rates for the lesion types, but no significant difference between the two display modes. Detection performance for both monitors was higher for nodules and micro-nodules and lower for lines and patchy opacities. Analysis of lesion subgroups according to their location in lucent/obscured lung areas was also not statistically significant. Under ideal reading conditions, CRT and LCD displays perform equivalently for the detection of simulated subtle pulmonary lesions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15365756     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-004-2488-9

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


  12 in total

1.  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

2.  Evaluation of a flat CRT monitor for use in radiology.

Authors:  H Roehrig; E A Krupinski; T Furukawa
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Reliability of soft-copy versus hard-copy interpretation of emergency department radiographs: a prototype study.

Authors:  H L Kundel; M Polansky; M K Dalinka; R H Choplin; W B Gefter; J B Kneelend; W T Miller; W T Miller
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Basic principles of ROC analysis.

Authors:  C E Metz
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  1978-10       Impact factor: 4.446

Review 5.  AAPM/RSNA tutorial on equipment selection: PACS equipment overview: general guidelines for purchasing and acceptance testing of PACS equipment.

Authors:  Ehsan Samei; J Anthony Seibert; Katherine Andriole; Aldo Badano; Jay Crawford; Bruce Reiner; Michael J Flynn; Paul Chang
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.333

6.  Computed radiography in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units: a comparison of 2.5 K x 2 K soft-copy images vs digital hard-copy film.

Authors:  P W Brill; P Winchester; P Cahill; M Lesser; S M Durfee; C S Giess; P A Auld; B Greenwald
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  1996

7.  Accuracy of bedside chest hard-copy screen-film versus hard- and soft-copy computed radiographs in a medical intensive care unit: receiver operating characteristic analysis.

Authors:  H L Kundel; W Gefter; J Aronchick; W Miller; H Hatabu; C H Whitfill; W Miller
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Subtle pulmonary abnormalities: detection on monitors with varying spatial resolutions and maximum luminance levels compared with detection on storage phosphor radiographic hard copies.

Authors:  D Otto; T M Bernhardt; U Rapp-Bernhardt; K Ludwig; A Kästner; U B Liehr; W Döhring
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  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

10.  Selenium radiography versus storage phosphor and conventional radiography in the detection of simulated chest lesions.

Authors:  C M Schaefer-Prokop; M Prokop; A Schmidt; U Neitzel; M Galanski
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  6 in total

1.  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

2.  Pulmonary nodule detection with digital projection radiography: an ex-vivo study on increased latitude post-processing.

Authors:  Juergen Biederer; Tobias Gottwald; Hendrik Bolte; Christian Riedel; Sandra Freitag; Richard Van Metter; Martin Heller
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-09-09       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  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

Review 4.  Soft-copy display and reading: what the radiologist should know in the digital era.

Authors:  Erich Sorantin
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2008-06-12

5.  High-resolution monochrome liquid crystal display versus efficient household colour liquid crystal display: comparison of their diagnostic performance with unenhanced CT images in focal liver lesions.

Authors:  Yusuke Kawasumi; Takayuki Yamada; Hideki Ota; Masahiro Tsuboi; Kei Takase; Akihiro Sato; Shuichi Higano; Tadashi Ishibashi; Shoki Takahashi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-05-08       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5-megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study.

Authors:  Takeshi Kamitani; Hidetake Yabuuchi; Hiroyasu Soeda; Yoshio Matsuo; Takashi Okafuji; Shuji Sakai; Akio Furuya; Masamitsu Hatakenaka; Nobuhide Ishii; Hiroshi Honda
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-11-09       Impact factor: 5.315

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.