Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

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 (Az) were computed. Significance of differences between the two viewing conditions were evaluated with Wilcoxon test. Mean Az 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.

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. a
Fig. 2.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bauman RA, Gell G, Dwyer SJ III (1996) Large picture archiving and communication systems of the world. Part 2. J Digit Imaging 9:172–177

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Foord KD (2001) Year 2000: status of picture archiving and digital imaging in European hospitals. Eur Radiol 11:513–524

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mertelmeier T (1999) Why and how is soft copy reading possible in clinical practice? J Digit Imaging 12:3–11

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bauman RA, Gell G (2000) The reality of picture archiving and communication systems (PACS): a survey J Digit Imaging 13:157–156

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Pärtan G, Mosser H, Tekusch A, Urban M, Augustin I, Hruby W (1994) Findings of digital intensive or bed lung radiographs at the monitor vs hard copy: a clinical ROC study. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 161:354–360

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. O'Connor PJ, Davies AG, Fowler RC, Lintott DJ, Bury RF, Parkin GJ, Martinez D, Saifuddin A, Cowen AR (1998) Reporting requirements for skeletal digital radiography: comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy presentation. Radiology 207:249–254

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Parisi SB, Mogel GT, Dominguez R, Dao H, Cramer TJ (1998) 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. Eur Radiol 8:141–143

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Beard DV, Molina PL, Muller KE, Denelsbeck KM, Hemminger BM, Perry JR, Braeuning MP, Glueck DH, Bidgood WD Jr, Mauro M et al. (1995) Interpretation time of serial chest CT examinations with stacked-metaphor workstation versus film alternator. Radiology 197:753–758

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ, Pomerantz S, Dahlke A, Rallis D (2001) Radiologists' productivity in the interpretation of CT scans: a comparison of PACS with conventional film. Am J Roentgenol 176:861–864

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown JJ, Malchow SC, Totty WG, Wilson AJ, Lee JK, Vannier MW, Jost RG (1991) MR examination of the knee: interpretation with multiscreen digital workstation vs hardcopy format. Am J Roentgenol 157:81–85

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Vorbeck F, al-Zayer F, Jung B, Breitenseher M, Imhof H (1999) Filmless magnetic resonance tomography. Advantages and disadvantages in comparison with film reports. Radiologe 39:276–281

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, Muller KE, Hemminger BM, Brown ML, Johnston RE, Kuzmiak CM, Braeuning MP, Freimanis RI, Soo MS, Baker JA, Walsh R (2002) Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 223:483–488

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pavlicek W, Owen JM, Peter MB (2000) Active matrix liquid crystal displays for clinical imaging: comparison with cathode ray tube displays. J Digit Imaging 13 (Suppl 1):155–161

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tanne D, Kasner SE, Demchuk AM, Koren-Morag N, Hanson S, Grond M, Levine SR (2002) Markers of increased risk of intracerebral hemorrhage after intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator therapy for acute ischemic stroke in clinical practice: the multicenter rt-PA Stroke survey. Circulation 105:1679–1685

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. American College of Radiology (1998) ACR Standard for Teleradiology. http://www.acr.org/cgi-bin/fr?tmpl:standards02,pdf:pdf/teleradiology.pdf (accessed 2 September 2002)

  16. Obuchowski NA (2000) Sample size tables for receiver operating characteristic studies. Am J Roentgenol 175:603–608

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bräuer R, Gerner G, Kupper W, Eickmayer F (1999) Monitor characteristics and technologies for direct digital radiography. In: Lemke HU, Vannier MW, Inamura K, Farman AG (eds) Proc CARS '99, pp 341–346

  18. Kim AY, Cho KS, Song KS, Kim JH, Kim JG, Ha HK (2001) Urinary calculi on computed radiography: comparison of observer performance with hard-copy versus soft-copy images on different viewer systems. Am J Roentgenol 177:331–335

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Haak R, Wicht MJ, Hellmich M, Nowak G, Noack MJ (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 

  20. 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 

  21. Iwano S, Ishigaki T, Shimamoto K, Inamura K, Maeda T, Ikeda M, Ishiguchi T, Kozuka T (2001) Detection of subtle pulmonary disease on CR chest images: monochromatic CRT monitor vs color CRT monitor. Eur Radiol 11:59–64

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. American College of Radiology (2001) ACR Standard for Digital Image Data Management. http://www.acr.org/cgi-bin/fr?tmpl:standards02,pdf:pdf/digital_image.pdf (accessed 2 September 2002)

Download references

Acknowledgements. The authors thank their colleagues who served as observers: W. Anzböck, H. Eckelhart, K. Lomoschitz, W. Krampla, E. Kucera, J. Malcher, G. Oberhauser, P. Pamberger, B. Piatti and M. Wassipaul. Many thanks also to T. Karner for assistance in statistical analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Danube Hospital, Langobardenstrasse 122, 1220, Vienna, Austria

    Gerald Pärtan, Rudolf Mayrhofer, Michael Urban, Manfred Wassipaul, Ludwig Pichler & Walter Hruby

Authors
  1. Gerald Pärtan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rudolf Mayrhofer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Urban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Manfred Wassipaul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ludwig Pichler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Walter Hruby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerald Pärtan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pärtan, G., Mayrhofer, R., Urban, M. et al. Diagnostic performance of liquid crystal and cathode-ray-tube monitors in brain computed tomography. Eur Radiol 13, 2397–2401 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-1822-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-1822-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation