Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 7/2005

01-07-2005 | Physics

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

Authors: Elisabeth Oschatz, Mathias Prokop, Martina Scharitzer, Michael Weber, Csilla Balassy, Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 7/2005

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
Samei E, Seibert JA, Andriole K et al (2004) AAPM/RSNA tutorial on equipment selection: PACS equipment overview. Radiographics 24:313–334PubMed
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 205:859–863PubMed
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
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 26:333–336PubMed
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 207:249–254PubMed
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 14:142–148CrossRefPubMed
8.
Pavlicek W, Owen JM, Peter MB (2000) Active matrix liquid crystal displays for clinical imaging: comparison with cathode ray tubes. J Digit Imaging 13:155–161PubMed
9.
Roehrig H, Fan J, Krupinski EA et al (2002) LCDs versus CRTs: a comparative performance evaluation. Radiology 225(P):186
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 31:193–197CrossRefPubMed
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 201:45–50PubMed
12.
Metz C (1987) Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 8:283–298
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 207:237–242PubMed
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 13:2397–2401CrossRefPubMed
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
16.
Tong HS, Prando G (1992) Hygroscopic ion-induced antiglare antistatic coating for CRT applications. Proc Soc Inf Displ 23:14–517
Metadata
Title
Comparison of liquid crystal versus cathode ray tube display for the detection of simulated chest lesions
Authors
Elisabeth Oschatz
Mathias Prokop
Martina Scharitzer
Michael Weber
Csilla Balassy
Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop
Publication date
01-07-2005
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 7/2005
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2488-9

Other articles of this Issue 7/2005

European Radiology 7/2005 Go to the issue

Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Use of a microbubble agent to increase the effects of high intensity focused ultrasound on liver tissue

Musculoskeletal

Radiofrequency thermoablation of primary non-spinal osteoid osteoma: optimization of the procedure

Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Portal flow into the liver through veins at the site of biliary-enteric anastomosis

Interpretation Corner

A left iliac fossa mass with iliac venous thrombosis (2005:7a)

Cardiac

Evaluation of cardiac tumors with magnetic resonance imaging

Letter to the Editor

Author’s reply