American Journal of Roentgenology · 2006 · 14 citations · 4 references
MedicineBiomedical EngineeringRadiologyDiagnostic ImagingDiagnostic RadiologyDigital ImagingBreast AssessmentBreast Cancer ImagingBreast ExaminationBreast ImagingMammography PhysicsMedical ImagingFull-field Digital MammographyMammographic Image QualityMammographyMammography DetectorsMammography ImagingScreen-film MammographyScreening Mammography
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine if the display of full-field digital mammograms on a 5-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor is at least equivalent to the display of the same on a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube (CRT) monitor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five radiologists evaluated normal anatomy and features of 61 abnormalities in 48 full-field digital mammograms. A 9-point Likert scale was used to compare images on two identical soft-copy review workstations, one equipped with two 5-megapixel CRTs and the other with two 5-megapixel LCDs. Outcomes were evaluated using a random-effects analysis of variance model. Means and SEs were reported. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals and p values were calculated. RESULTS: The two systems were equivalent for most features. The LCDs were rated better for the sharpness of mass margins (p = 0.011) and mass conspicuity (p = 0.050). For calcium features, the LCDs were rated better than the CRTs for lesion conspicuity (p = 0.010) and number of calcifications (p = 0.043). For architectural distortions, there was no statistically significant difference between the monitors in any of the features evaluated. For display characteristics, the LCDs were better for luminance (p = 0.021). The CRTs were significantly better for image noise (p = 0.001). In the overall ratings, there was no statistically significant difference between the two displays. CONCLUSION: The 5-megapixel monochrome active-matrix LCD is equivalent to and in some respects better than the 5-megapixel CRT display for full-field digital mammograms over a range of normal and abnormal findings.
4
Effects of Luminance and Resolution on Observer Performance with Chest Radiographs
John M. Herron, Thomas M. Bender, William L. Campbell et al. · Radiology · 2000 · 66 citations