Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 10/2008

01-10-2008 | Computer Applications

High-resolution monochrome liquid crystal display versus efficient household colour liquid crystal display: comparison of their diagnostic performance with unenhanced CT images in focal liver lesions

Authors: Yusuke Kawasumi, Takayuki Yamada, Hideki Ota, Masahiro Tsuboi, Kei Takase, Akihiro Sato, Shuichi Higano, Tadashi Ishibashi, Shoki Takahashi

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 10/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

This study compared the ability of an efficient household liquid crystal display (LCD) and a medical high-resolution LCD to detect small hepatic lesions on unenhanced computed tomography (CT) images. We obtained the images from 100 subjects who had undergone abdominal CT. They consisted of 41 patients with a single space-occupying lesion (SOL) in the liver and 59 control subjects with no SOL. Independently, five radiologists rated their confidence concerning the presence of hepatic SOLs on a continuous scale from 0 to 1. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed using the jackknife method using the program LABMRMC. We evaluated the differences in A z based on the 95% confidence intervals. The mean A z of the five observers was 0.9594 with the efficient household LCD vs. 0.9335 with the medical high-resolution LCD. The difference was –0.0422, and the 95% confidence interval was –0.1101 to 0.0257 (p=0.2203). There was no significant difference in the A z value between the two types of LCDs. The diagnostic performance with the household LCD was comparable to that with the high-resolution LCD, implying that the former type of LCD can be used to diagnose CT images.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ et al (2001) Radiologists’ productivity in the interpretation of CT scans: a comparison of PACS with conventional film. Am J Roentgenol 176:861–864 Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Hooper FJ et al (2001) Radiologists’ productivity in the interpretation of CT scans: a comparison of PACS with conventional film. Am J Roentgenol 176:861–864
2.
go back to reference Wu TC, Lee SK, Peng CH et al (1999) An economical, personal computer-based picture archiving and communication system. RadioGraphics 19:523–530PubMed Wu TC, Lee SK, Peng CH et al (1999) An economical, personal computer-based picture archiving and communication system. RadioGraphics 19:523–530PubMed
3.
go back to reference Kolodny GM, Raptopolous V, Simon M et al (1999) A low-cost, full-function picture archiving and communication system using standard PC hardware and the traditional 4-over-4 display format. Am J Roentgenol 172:591–594 Kolodny GM, Raptopolous V, Simon M et al (1999) A low-cost, full-function picture archiving and communication system using standard PC hardware and the traditional 4-over-4 display format. Am J Roentgenol 172:591–594
4.
go back to reference Doyle AJ, Fevre JL, Anderson GD (2005) Personal computer versus workstation display: observer performance in detection of wrist fractures on digital radiographs. Radiology 237:872–877PubMedCrossRef Doyle AJ, Fevre JL, Anderson GD (2005) Personal computer versus workstation display: observer performance in detection of wrist fractures on digital radiographs. Radiology 237:872–877PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Partan G, Mayrhofer R, Urban M et al (2003) Diagnostic performance of liquid crystal and cathode-ray-tube monitors in brain computed tomography. Eur Radiol 13:2397–2401PubMedCrossRef Partan G, Mayrhofer R, Urban M et al (2003) Diagnostic performance of liquid crystal and cathode-ray-tube monitors in brain computed tomography. Eur Radiol 13:2397–2401PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Usami H, Ikeda M, Ishigaki T et al (2006) The influence of liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors on observer performance for the detection of nodular lesions on chest radiographs. Eur Radiol 16:726–732PubMedCrossRef Usami H, Ikeda M, Ishigaki T et al (2006) The influence of liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors on observer performance for the detection of nodular lesions on chest radiographs. Eur Radiol 16:726–732PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Oschatz E, Prokop M, Scharitzer M et al (2005) Comparison of liquid crystal versus cathode ray tube display for the detection of simulated chest lesions. Eur Radiol 15:1472–1476PubMedCrossRef Oschatz E, Prokop M, Scharitzer M et al (2005) Comparison of liquid crystal versus cathode ray tube display for the detection of simulated chest lesions. Eur Radiol 15:1472–1476PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Ko JP, Rusinek H, Naidich DP et al (2003) Wavelet compression of low-dose chest CT data: effect on lung nodule detection. Radiology 228:70–75PubMedCrossRef Ko JP, Rusinek H, Naidich DP et al (2003) Wavelet compression of low-dose chest CT data: effect on lung nodule detection. Radiology 228:70–75PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference 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 207:237–242PubMed 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 207:237–242PubMed
10.
go back to reference Herron JM, Bender TM, Campbell WL et al (2000) Effects of luminance and resolution on observer performance with chest radiographs. Radiology 215:169–174PubMed Herron JM, Bender TM, Campbell WL et al (2000) Effects of luminance and resolution on observer performance with chest radiographs. Radiology 215:169–174PubMed
11.
go back to reference O’Connor PJ, Davies AG, Fowler RC et al (1998) Reporting requirements for skeletal digital radiography: comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy presentation. Radiology 207:249–254PubMed O’Connor PJ, Davies AG, Fowler RC et al (1998) Reporting requirements for skeletal digital radiography: comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy presentation. Radiology 207:249–254PubMed
12.
go back to reference Kim AY, Cho KS, Song KS et al (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 Kim AY, Cho KS, Song KS et al (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
13.
go back to reference Slone RM, Muka E, Pilgram TK (2003) Irreversible JPEG compression of digital chest radiographs for primary interpretation: assessment of visually lossless threshold. Radiology 228:425–429PubMedCrossRef Slone RM, Muka E, Pilgram TK (2003) Irreversible JPEG compression of digital chest radiographs for primary interpretation: assessment of visually lossless threshold. Radiology 228:425–429PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Nawfel RD, Chan KH, Wagenaar DJ et al (1992) Evaluation of video gray-scale display. Medical Physics 19:561–567PubMedCrossRef Nawfel RD, Chan KH, Wagenaar DJ et al (1992) Evaluation of video gray-scale display. Medical Physics 19:561–567PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Obuchowski NA (2000) Sample size tables for receiver operating characteristic studies. Am J Roentgenol 175:603–608 Obuchowski NA (2000) Sample size tables for receiver operating characteristic studies. Am J Roentgenol 175:603–608
21.
go back to reference Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO et al (2002) Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 223:483–488PubMedCrossRef Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO et al (2002) Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 223:483–488PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
High-resolution monochrome liquid crystal display versus efficient household colour liquid crystal display: comparison of their diagnostic performance with unenhanced CT images in focal liver lesions
Authors
Yusuke Kawasumi
Takayuki Yamada
Hideki Ota
Masahiro Tsuboi
Kei Takase
Akihiro Sato
Shuichi Higano
Tadashi Ishibashi
Shoki Takahashi
Publication date
01-10-2008
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 10/2008
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1008-8

Other articles of this Issue 10/2008

European Radiology 10/2008 Go to the issue