PURPOSE: To compare observer performance with a flat-panel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor and with a high-resolution gray-scale cathode-ray tube (CRT) monitor in the detection of simulated support catheters on bedside chest radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ethics committee did not require approval or patient informed consent when this study began. Because of a change in regulations, before images were acquired the nature of the study and procedures were explained to patients or their relatives, and consent was then obtained. A total of 131 catheter fragments (12-14 per radiograph) were superimposed over 10 anteroposterior bedside chest radiographs obtained with storage phosphor technology. Images were displayed on an LCD monitor (1536 x 2048 matrix) and a CRT monitor (2048 x 2560 matrix). Five radiologists independently located the catheter fragments and rated their confidence in detection with bright and subdued ambient light. A two-way analysis of variance and the Friedman test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There was no significant difference for either display type with respect to correctly detected catheter fragments (mean sensitivity, 56.6% and 56.0% for the CRT and the LCD monitors, respectively, with bright light and 61.2% for both monitors with subdued light). With both display types, detection rate with bright light decreased significantly (P < .05). False-positive rates and confidence ratings were not significantly affected by monitor type or ambient light. CONCLUSION: In a study with simulation of clinical conditions, performance of the LCD monitor and high-resolution CRT monitor for detection of support catheters on bedside chest radiographs was equivalent. With both displays, detection performance was equally reduced with bright ambient light. (c) RSNA, 2004.
PURPOSE: To compare observer performance with a flat-panel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor and with a high-resolution gray-scale cathode-ray tube (CRT) monitor in the detection of simulated support catheters on bedside chest radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ethics committee did not require approval or patient informed consent when this study began. Because of a change in regulations, before images were acquired the nature of the study and procedures were explained to patients or their relatives, and consent was then obtained. A total of 131 catheter fragments (12-14 per radiograph) were superimposed over 10 anteroposterior bedside chest radiographs obtained with storage phosphor technology. Images were displayed on an LCD monitor (1536 x 2048 matrix) and a CRT monitor (2048 x 2560 matrix). Five radiologists independently located the catheter fragments and rated their confidence in detection with bright and subdued ambient light. A two-way analysis of variance and the Friedman test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There was no significant difference for either display type with respect to correctly detected catheter fragments (mean sensitivity, 56.6% and 56.0% for the CRT and the LCD monitors, respectively, with bright light and 61.2% for both monitors with subdued light). With both display types, detection rate with bright light decreased significantly (P < .05). False-positive rates and confidence ratings were not significantly affected by monitor type or ambient light. CONCLUSION: In a study with simulation of clinical conditions, performance of the LCD monitor and high-resolution CRT monitor for detection of support catheters on bedside chest radiographs was equivalent. With both displays, detection performance was equally reduced with bright ambient light. (c) RSNA, 2004.
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