Image Quality of a Wet Laser Printer Versus a Paper Printer for Full-Field Digital Mammograms

Schueller, Gerd; Kaindl, Elisabeth; Matzek, Wolfgang; Semturs, Friedrich; Schueller-Weidekamm, Claudia; Helbich, Thomas H.

doi:10.2214/ajr.04.1583

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings differ from those of Liang et al who compared dry laser printing to paper printing in full-field digital mammography and who recommend not using a paper printer because of a lack of detectability of clustered microcalcifications [18]. Schueller et al, who compared the image quality of a wet laser printer with that of a paper printer for full-field digital mammograms, also reported lower image quality on paper, which should not be used for this application [19]. The discrepancy with our results might be explained by the fact that mammography requires both high spatial resolution and high low-contrast resolution.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Can Paper Replace Laser Film to Communicate the Results of Wrist Radiographs in Trauma Cases? A Reproducibility Study of the Reading of Wrist Trauma Case Radiographs on a PACS Workstation, Laser Film, and Paper

Teixeira¹,

Zabel²,

Baumann³

et al. 2013

J Digit Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main goal of this study was to determine the reproducibility of the reading of wrist trauma case radiographs using three different media: laser film, a picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) workstation, and paper with an optimized layout. The study was conducted retrospectively in 200 consecutive patients consulting at the emergency department for wrist trauma and who underwent wrist X-ray investigation using a computed radiography system. There were 82 men and 118 women. The mean age was 48.3 years (16-95 years). Our institutional review board does not require patient approval or informed consent for retrospective review of case records. The readings were made by two independent readers who analyzed the 200 patient radiographs consecutively in one session for each type of media: paper, laser film, and on a PACS dual-screen workstation. The inter-reader agreements were substantial or almost perfect, with kappa values of 0.83 (0.76-0.90) for the PACS, 0.83 (0.76-0.90) for film, and 0.80 (0.72-0.87) for paper. The inter-technique agreement was almost perfect in all cases. There is a high interobserver agreement between PACS, laser film, and paper readings for wrist trauma cases. With a layout of one radiograph on each sheet, paper could replace laser films to communicate the results of wrist radiographs in trauma cases for outpatients.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Can Paper Replace Laser Film to Communicate the Results of Wrist Radiographs in Trauma Cases? A Reproducibility Study of the Reading of Wrist Trauma Case Radiographs on a PACS Workstation, Laser Film, and Paper

Teixeira¹,

Zabel²,

Baumann³

et al. 2013

J Digit Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Paper prints have a huge advantage over film printing in terms of cost and speed, with paper and paper printing also being more environmentally friendly 7 . The printer tested here was able to print in colour and vividly reproduce captured colour images.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Numerous studies have been performed comparing different combinations of CR soft copy reading to conventional film and laser film reading and concluded that both CR soft copy and laser film hard copy are equivalent in quality to conventional film. [2][3][4] Few studies comparing paper print to digital screen reading of radiographic images are found in the literature, and the majority are based on dental 5,6 and mammography studies, 7 with no studies utilizing CR radiography for comparison as done here. CXR, chest radiography…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In a study comparing the image quality of wet laser print and laser paper print reading in full‐field digital mammography (FFDM), inferior image brightness and contrast of the paper prints correlated with measurable values in the objective comparison to wet laser film, with the study concluding that paper prints should not be used for FFDM 7 . As mammography requires higher image quality, and as the resolution of the tested laser paper printer in that study was lower than that of our printer (600 × 600 versus 1200 × 1200 dpi), it would be difficult to relate these findings to plain projectional radiography and a higher quality printer tested here.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…22 Paper prints have a huge advantage over film printing in terms of cost and speed, with paper and paper printing also being more environmentally friendly. 7 The printer tested here was able to print in colour and vividly reproduce captured colour images. A warning that reads 'Paper Print Not For Diagnostic Purposes' is automatically printed at the bottom of every paper print that is produced by our printer.…”

Section: Axr Versus Mskmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of paper print and soft copy reading in plain paediatric radiographs

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the introduction of a Picture Archiving and Communication System, Computed (CR) and Digital Radiography (DR), reading digital images takes place from a computer screen. Laser paper print rather than laser film would be a significantly more cost-effective option for hard copy production, but would need to demonstrate acceptable diagnostic quality compared to the reference standard of screen reading. A comparative study of 51 digital paediatric CR radiographs presented in laser paper print and soft copy format to determine the diagnostic value of the paper print when compared to the reference standard of screen reading. Chest radiography had a poor sensitivity of 66.1% while musculoskeletal and abdominal radiography had acceptable sensitivities of 90% and 99%, respectively. Specificity was excellent for the different regions (98.6-99.5%). The paper print format should not be used for diagnostic purposes in paediatric chest radiography, but may still be used for demonstration when accompanied by the radiology rapport obtained from soft copy reading. Further studies would be needed to investigate the use of paper prints in abdominal and musculoskeletal radiography owing to the low number of abdominal radiographs and lack of musculoskeletal case variety in our study.

show abstract

Validation of image quality in full-field digital mammography: Is the replacement of wet by dry laser printers justified?

Schueller

Kaindl

Langenberger

et al. 2007

European Journal of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Image Quality of a Wet Laser Printer Versus a Paper Printer for Full-Field Digital Mammograms

Abstract: For FFDM, images obtained from a wet laser printer show superior objective and subjective image quality compared with a paper printer. As a consequence, the paper printer should not be used for FFDM.

Cited by 9 publications

References 18 publications

Can Paper Replace Laser Film to Communicate the Results of Wrist Radiographs in Trauma Cases? A Reproducibility Study of the Reading of Wrist Trauma Case Radiographs on a PACS Workstation, Laser Film, and Paper

Can Paper Replace Laser Film to Communicate the Results of Wrist Radiographs in Trauma Cases? A Reproducibility Study of the Reading of Wrist Trauma Case Radiographs on a PACS Workstation, Laser Film, and Paper

Comparison of paper print and soft copy reading in plain paediatric radiographs

Validation of image quality in full-field digital mammography: Is the replacement of wet by dry laser printers justified?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About