Variation of monitor luminance on radiologist productivity in the interpretation of skeletal radiographs using a picture archiving and communication system

Reiner, Bruce I.; Siegel, Eliot L.; Hooper, Frank J.; Ghebrekidan, Habte; Warner, Jean K.; Briscoe, Brian; Protopapas, Zenon; Pomerantz, Stephen M.

doi:10.1007/bf03168691

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A low luminance has been stated to increase the time for diagnosis. 1 Krupinski et al 12 found no significant difference of performance between high and low luminance, although the dwell time was longer with the lowerluminance displays. In another study, it was stated that observers were taking more time to make less accurate decisions using the color display.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…In the literature, medical-grade monochrome displays are usually recommended, mostly because of their higher luminance. 1 The major drawback of the monochrome displays is their very high cost, which has prompted some institutions to use standard color displays, which are considerably less expensive because they are mass-produced for the general computer market.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We also wished to test the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in diagnostic image quality between clinical radiographs of the lumbar spine displayed on the same monitors. 1 From the Department of Radiology, Ö rebro University Hospital, SE-701 85, Ö rebro Sweden. 2 From the Department of Radiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, SE-413 45, Gothenburg Sweden.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Color LCD and Medical-grade Monochrome LCD Displays in Diagnostic Radiology

Geijer

Forsberg

et al. 2007

J Digit Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In diagnostic radiology, medical-grade monochrome displays are usually recommended because of their higher luminance. Standard color displays can be used as a less expensive alternative, but have a lower luminance. The aim of the present study was to compare image quality for these two types of displays. Images of a CDRAD contrast-detail phantom were read by four radiologists using a 2-megapixel (MP) color display (143 cd/m 2 maximum luminance) as well as 2-MP (295 cd/m 2 ) and 3-MP monochrome displays. Thirty lumbar spine radiographs were also read by four radiologists using the color and the 2-MP monochrome display in a visual grading analysis (VGA). Very small differences were found between the displays when reading the CDRAD images. The VGA scores were j0.28 for the color and j0.25 for the monochrome display (p=0.24; NS). It thus seems possible to use color displays in diagnostic radiology provided that grayscale adjustment is used.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Color LCD and Medical-grade Monochrome LCD Displays in Diagnostic Radiology

Geijer

Forsberg

et al. 2007

J Digit Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The relative balance between monitor light output and background reporting room lighting is an important factor in determining the degree of radiologist fatigue, as well as efficiency and accuracy [8]. Reiner et al assessed the impact of luminance in interpreting radiographs and found a subjective increase in the observed level of confidence of interpretation as monitor brightness increased [9]. Furthermore, monitor brightness was inversely proportional to reporter fatigue [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reiner et al assessed the impact of luminance in interpreting radiographs and found a subjective increase in the observed level of confidence of interpretation as monitor brightness increased [9]. Furthermore, monitor brightness was inversely proportional to reporter fatigue [9]. On-off light switches should be located near each workstation, ideally with individual dimmers to enable users to adjust the lighting depending on the task being performed [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Musculoskeletal Symptoms Amongst Clinical Radiologists and the Implications of Reporting Environment Ergonomics—A Multicentre Questionnaire Study

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This multicentre study aimed to assess compliance of the reporting environment with best ergonomic practice and to determine the prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms related to working as a radiologist. All 148 radiology trainees and consultants in 10 hospitals across the region were invited to complete a musculoskeletal symptoms and reporting ergonomics questionnaire. Best ergonomic reporting practice was defined, following literature review, as being able to alter the following: monitor, desk, chair and armrest height, chair back support, ambient light, and temperature. The frequency that these facilities were available and how often they were used was determined. One hundred and twenty-three out of 148 (83 %) radiologists responded, and 38 % reported radiologyassociated occupational injury. Lower back discomfort was the commonest radiology associated musculoskeletal symptom (41 %). Only 13 % of those with occupational injury sought the advice of occupational health. No reporting environments conformed completely to best ergonomic practice. Where certain facilities were available, less than a third of radiologists made personal ergonomic adjustments prior to starting a reporting session. Radiologists who had good selfassessed knowledge of best ergonomic practice had significantly less back discomfort than those with poor self-assessed knowledge (P <0.005). We demonstrated high prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms amongst radiologists. Poor compliance of the reporting environment with best ergonomic practice, in combination with our other findings of a low level of ergonomic awareness, low rates of making ergonomic adjustments and seeking appropriate help, may be implicated. We hope this study raises awareness of this issue and helps prevent long-term occupational injury amongst radiologists from poor ergonomic practice.

show abstract

Frequency and impact of high-resolution monitor failure in a filmless imaging department

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to assess the image quality and the rate of failure of the high-resolution (2,048 x 1536 pixel) monitors used for primary diagnosis in a filmless radiology department and to analyze the type of problems encountered as well as the action taken to repair the monitors. Data were collected from Picture Archival and Communication Systeta (PACS) service Iogs to determine rates of monitor adjustment and replacement, the symptoms reported, and the action taken. Additionally, random surveys of the high-resolution monitors were performed using a standard test pattern to assess spatial and contrast resolution in the center and outer corners of the monitors. Analysis of monitor service records showed a high rate of monitor replacement (41% per year) resulting in a relatively short "life expectancy" (defined as average time required before replacement) of 2.4 years. Random surveys of monitor quality using a standard test pattern showed suboptimal image quality in approximately 54% of the monitors with moderate image quality degradation present in at least one region of 27% of the high-resolution monitors, despite our vendor's quality control program. The results of this study support our subjective impression and those of other colleagues in the PACS community of an unacceptably high monitor failure rate and persistent image quality problems with 2,000 pixel monitors used for primary diagnosis. The relatively high incidence of suboptimal quality monitors suggests that more frequent quality control should be performed using a test pattern particularly given the fact that radiologists often are unable to discern degradation of monitor performance using clinical images. The high incidence of problems with image quality on highreso|ution monitors indicates that vendors need to develop better quality control in monitor design and testing. Radiologists should review briefly a test pattern on each monitor at the beginning of each day. A computer program should be incorporated into the PACS, which asks radiologists to evaluate a test pattern and records the results in a central database, which is communicated to the service engineers. Further studies should be evaiuated to determine the clinical impact of monitor image degradation, which is relatively easily seen using a test pattern but may be difficult to discern on clinical images. Requests for proposals (RFPs) for PACS and service contracts must specify carefully requirements for monitor image quaiity and conditions under which the vendor is required to replace these monitors.

show abstract

Variation of monitor luminance on radiologist productivity in the interpretation of skeletal radiographs using a picture archiving and communication system

Abstract: This is el US gOA'glTlltl(2llt work. Th 91 91 llo restrictions on its ltAC.

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Comparison of Color LCD and Medical-grade Monochrome LCD Displays in Diagnostic Radiology

Comparison of Color LCD and Medical-grade Monochrome LCD Displays in Diagnostic Radiology

Musculoskeletal Symptoms Amongst Clinical Radiologists and the Implications of Reporting Environment Ergonomics—A Multicentre Questionnaire Study

Frequency and impact of high-resolution monitor failure in a filmless imaging department

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About