Getting the most out of digital image viewing - Veterinary Medicine
  • SEARCH:
Medicine Center
DVM Veterinary Medicine Featuring Information from:

ADVERTISEMENT

Getting the most out of digital image viewing
Digital imaging systems are only as strong as their weakest link. Don't shortchange your high-quality radiographs with substandard digital viewing software or technology or an inadequate reviewing environment.


VETERINARY MEDICINE SUPPLEMENT


CONCLUSION

Digital imaging systems are often referred to as imaging chains in which the diagnostic utility of the system is limited by its weakest link. For this reason, it is important not to limit an imaging system with low-quality monitors. However, a good-quality monitor will not compensate for poor-quality radiographs or a low-quality digital radiography system.

Monitor purchasing decisions should depend on the requirements of the practice and the uses of the workstation. Ideally, all clinics using digital radiography would be equipped with high-quality, high-resolution grayscale monitors. At a minimum, a medical-grade monitor is recommended for the primary workstation, but a high-quality consumer-grade monitor can be considered for other applications.20

Sarah M. Puchalski, DVM, DACVR
Department of Surgical and Radiological Sciences
School of Veterinary Medicine
University of California
Davis, CA 95616

REFERENCES

1. Bacher K, Smeets P, De Hauwere A, et al. Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection. Eur J Radiol 2006;58:471-479.

2. Badano A. AAPM/RSNA tutorial on equipment selection: PACS equipment overview: display systems. Radiographics 2004;24:879-889.

3. Balassy C, Prokop M, Weber M, et al. Flat-panel display (LCD) versus high-resolution gray-scale display (CRT) for chest radiography: an observer preference study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:752-756.

4. Batchelor J. Monitor choice impacts diagnostic accuracy and throughput. http://Auntminnie.com/; May 4, 2002.

5. Doyle AJ, Le Fevre J, Anderson GD. Personal computer versus workstation display: observer performance in detection of wrist fractures on digital radiographs. Radiology 2005;237:872-877.

6. Graf B, Simon U, Eickmeyer F, et al. 1K versus 2K monitor: a clinical alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic study of observer performance using pulmonary nodules. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1067-1074.

7. Herron JM, Bender TM, Campbell WL, et al. Effects of luminance and resolution on observer performance with chest radiographs. Radiology 2000;215:169-174.

8. Kotter E, Bley TA, Saueressig U, et al. Comparison of the detectability of high- and low-contrast details on a TFT screen and a CRT screen designed for radiologic diagnosis. Invest Radiol 2003;38:719-724.

9. Pal S. LCD just as good as conventional monitors for chest CR. http://Auntminnie.com/;April 30, 2002.

10. Peer S, Giacomuzzi SM, Peer R, et al. Resolution requirements for monitor viewing of digital flat-panel detector radiographs: a contrast detail analysis. Eur Radiol 2003;13:413-417.

11. Saunders Jr RS, Samei E. Resolution and noise measurements of five CRT and LCD medical displays. Med Phys 2006;33:308-319.

12. Song K, Lee JS, Kim HY, et al. Effect of monitor luminance on the detection of solitary pulmonary nodule: ROC analysis, in Proceedings. SPIE Conf Image Perception Performance 1999.

13. Bushberg J, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM, et al. The essential physics of medical imaging. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2002.

14. Krupinski EA, Johnson J, Roehrig H, et al. Use of a human visual system model to predict observer performance with CRT vs LCD display of images. J Digit Imaging 2004;17:258-263.

15. Ly CK. SoftCopy Display Quality Assurance Program at Texas Children's Hospital. J Digit Imaging 2002;15 (suppl 1):33-40.

16. Seto E, Ursani A, Cafazzo JA, et al. Image quality assurance of soft copy display systems. J Digit Imaging 2005;18:280-286.

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

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

19. Weiser J, Romlein J. Monitor minefield. Imaging Econ April 2006.

20. Hornof W. Digital radiography: the available technologies and how to separate hype from reality, in Proceedings. Am Vet Med Assoc Annu Convention 2005.


ADVERTISEMENT

Source: VETERINARY MEDICINE SUPPLEMENT,
Click here