AIMS: To establish whether lower resolution, lower cost viewing devices have the potential to deliver mammographic interpretation training. METHODS: On three occasions over eight months, fourteen consultant radiologists and reporting radiographers read forty challenging digital mammography screening cases on three different displays: a digital mammography workstation, a standard LCD monitor, and a smartphone. Standard image manipulation software was available for use on all three devices. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) were used to determine the significance of differences in performance between the viewing devices with/without the application of image manipulation software. The effect of reader's experience was also assessed. RESULTS: Performance was significantly higher (p < .05) on the mammography workstation compared to the other two viewing devices. When image manipulation software was applied to images viewed on the standard LCD monitor, performance improved to mirror levels seen on the mammography workstation with no significant difference between the two. Image interpretation on the smartphone was uniformly poor. Film reader experience had no significant effect on performance across all three viewing devices. CONCLUSION: Lower resolution standard LCD monitors combined with appropriate image manipulation software are capable of displaying mammographic pathology, and are potentially suitable for delivering mammographic interpretation training. KEY POINTS: • This study investigates potential devices for training in mammography interpretation. • Lower resolution standard LCD monitors are potentially suitable for mammographic interpretation training. • The effect of image manipulation tools on mammography workstation viewing is insignificant. • Reader experience had no significant effect on performance in all viewing devices. • Smart phones are not suitable for displaying mammograms.
AIMS: To establish whether lower resolution, lower cost viewing devices have the potential to deliver mammographic interpretation training. METHODS: On three occasions over eight months, fourteen consultant radiologists and reporting radiographers read forty challenging digital mammography screening cases on three different displays: a digital mammography workstation, a standard LCD monitor, and a smartphone. Standard image manipulation software was available for use on all three devices. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) were used to determine the significance of differences in performance between the viewing devices with/without the application of image manipulation software. The effect of reader's experience was also assessed. RESULTS: Performance was significantly higher (p < .05) on the mammography workstation compared to the other two viewing devices. When image manipulation software was applied to images viewed on the standard LCD monitor, performance improved to mirror levels seen on the mammography workstation with no significant difference between the two. Image interpretation on the smartphone was uniformly poor. Film reader experience had no significant effect on performance across all three viewing devices. CONCLUSION: Lower resolution standard LCD monitors combined with appropriate image manipulation software are capable of displaying mammographic pathology, and are potentially suitable for delivering mammographic interpretation training. KEY POINTS: • This study investigates potential devices for training in mammography interpretation. • Lower resolution standard LCD monitors are potentially suitable for mammographic interpretation training. • The effect of image manipulation tools on mammography workstation viewing is insignificant. • Reader experience had no significant effect on performance in all viewing devices. • Smart phones are not suitable for displaying mammograms.
Authors: Asim F Choudhri; Thomas M Carr; Christopher P Ho; James R Stone; Spencer B Gay; Drew L Lambert Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Patrick Mc Laughlin; Siobhan O Neill; Noel Fanning; Anne Marie Mc Garrigle; Owen J O Connor; Gerry Wyse; Michael M Maher Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2011-12-16
Authors: Rachel J Toomey; John T Ryan; Mark F McEntee; Michael G Evanoff; Dev P Chakraborty; Jonathan P McNulty; David J Manning; Edel M Thomas; Patrick C Brennan Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.959