Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Physics
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Samei E, Seibert JA, Andriole K et al (2004) AAPM/RSNA tutorial on equipment selection: PACS equipment overview. Radiographics 24:313–334

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kundel HL, Gefter W, Aronchick J et al (1997) Accuracy of bedside chest hard-copy screen-film versus hard- and soft-copy computed radiographs in a medical intensive care unit: receiver operating characteristics analysis. Radiology 205:859–863

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kundel HL, Polansky M, Dalinka M et al (2001) Reliability of soft copy versus hard copy interpretation of emergency department radiographs: a prototype study. Am J Roentgenol 177:525–528

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Brill PW, Winchester P, Cahill P et al (1996) Computed radiography in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units: a comparison of 2.5 K×2 K soft copy images vs. digital hard-copy film. Pediatr Radiol 26:333–336

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. O’Connor P, Davies AG, Fowler RC et al (1998) Reporting requirements for skeletal digital radiography: comparison of soft copy and hard copy presentation. Radiology 207:249–254

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Badano A (2003) Principles of cathode-ray tube and liquid crystal display devices. In: Advances in digital radiography: RSNA categorical course in diagnostic radiology physics. pp 91–102

  7. Roehrig H, Krupinski EA, Furukawa T (2001) Evaluation of a flat CRT monitor for use in radiology. J Digit Imaging 14:142–148

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pavlicek W, Owen JM, Peter MB (2000) Active matrix liquid crystal displays for clinical imaging: comparison with cathode ray tubes. J Digit Imaging 13:155–161

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Roehrig H, Fan J, Krupinski EA et al (2002) LCDs versus CRTs: a comparative performance evaluation. Radiology 225(P):186

    Google Scholar 

  10. Haak R, Wicht MJ, Hellmich M et al (2002) Influence of room lighting on grey-scale perception with a CRT- and a TFT monitor display. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 31:193–197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schaefer-Prokop CM, Prokop M, Schmidt A et al (1996) Selenium radiography versus storage phosphor and conventional radiography in the detection of simulated chest lesions. Radiology 201:45–50

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Metz C (1987) Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 8:283–298

    Google Scholar 

  13. Otto D, Bernhardt TM, Rapp-Bernhardt U et al (1998) Subtle pulmonary abnormalities: detection on monitors with varying spatial resolutions and maximum luminance levels compared with detection on storage phosphor radiographic hard copies. Radiology 207:237–242

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pärtan G, Mayrhofer R, Urban M, Wassipaul M, Pichler L, Hruby W (2003) Diagnostic performance of liquid crystal and cathode ray tube monitors in brain computed tomography. Eur Radiol 13:2397–2401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Siegel EL, Reiner BJ (2002) Comparison of the clinical performance of a high resolution active matrix LCD to a CRT monitor in the assessment of lung nodules using computed radiography images. Radiology 225(P):501

    Google Scholar 

  16. Tong HS, Prando G (1992) Hygroscopic ion-induced antiglare antistatic coating for CRT applications. Proc Soc Inf Displ 23:14–517

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Vienna General Hospital, University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    Elisabeth Oschatz, Mathias Prokop, Martina Scharitzer, Csilla Balassy & Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop

  2. Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Radiodiagnostics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Michael Weber

Authors
  1. Elisabeth Oschatz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mathias Prokop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martina Scharitzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Csilla Balassy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisabeth Oschatz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Oschatz, E., Prokop, M., Scharitzer, M. et al. Comparison of liquid crystal versus cathode ray tube display for the detection of simulated chest lesions. Eur Radiol 15, 1472–1476 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2488-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2488-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation