Grayscale calibration and quality assurance of diagnostic monitors in a PACS system

Crespi, A.; Bonsignore, Francesco; Paruccini, Nicoletta; Macchi, I

doi:10.1007/s11547-006-0081-9

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been suggested that failure to keep the ideal technical conditions could be associated to the monitor lifetime [8]. An analysis of test results and age does not suggest a correlation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality control evaluation of 37 liquid crystal displays used in diagnostic services

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The performance of 37 primary class liquid crystal display devices (2, 3 and 5 Mpixel matrix size) used in 9 different diagnostic services in Spain has been determined in terms of 13 quantitative and visual evaluations. The equipment had never been subjected to calibration or to QC tests since commissioning by vendors, between 2 and 18 months before measurements. Tests, using calibrated luminance meters and TG18 patterns, have evaluated ambient light conditions and other basic performance indicators, namely, display geometric distortion, artefacts, resolution and low-contrast visibility, contrast luminance response compliance to DICOM standard, luminance extreme values and uniformity between pairs of monitors associated to a same workstation. The principal sources of non-compliance are failures to visualize low-contrast test objects (73% of displays), excessive differences with the DICOM contrast response standard (57%), and nonuniform response of monitor pairs (54%). Also, 43% of LCD were found located in places with excessive illumination and presenting specular reflections from faceplates. The analysis of ten 5 Mpixel displays, of possible use in mammography services, indicates similar performance as the rest of monitors, except for the ambient luminance (100% complying with recommendations) and larger non-compliance with the DICOM response standard (80%). No correlation between image quality indicators and monitor hours of operation was found.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Ref. 8, an 18 month follow-up of calibration and performance for 4 CRT and 10 LCD monitors (seven of them not manufactured for medical uses) was reported. The main results indicated gradual deterioration over time of the maximum luminance in the non-medical displays.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality control evaluation of 37 liquid crystal displays used in diagnostic services

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The formulation of such guidelines has been derived from a combination of expert consensus 11 and research demonstrating adverse degradation of image quality consequent to suboptimally performing displays. 3,[7][8][9][12][13][14][15][16] The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) was one of the first organizations to develop guidelines from 1980 onwards and 'SMPTE RP 133-1991' 17 was the standard most commonly referred to in the assessment of medical display quality. In more recent times, an expert consensus subcommittee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) developed two comprehensive guidelines -The Assessment of Display Performance for Medical Imaging Systems 11 and the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Part 14 Greyscale Standard Display Function standard 18 -commonly referred to as 'DICOM Part 14 GSDF'.…”

Section: Display Performance Standards Applicable To Diagnostic Medicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recognition of the importance of displays in the practice of diagnostic medical radiology 3,8,[13][14][15]19 and the rapid growth of digital imaging in healthcare 13,20,21 has largely motivated the development of these comprehensive guidelines. Although these standards have not been legally mandated in any country (with the exception of Germany 22 ), much of the research in diagnostic medical radiology is fundamentally based on compliance with these standards.…”

Section: Display Performance Standards Applicable To Diagnostic Medicmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of computer display performance on the quality of digital radiographs: a review

Butt

Mahoney

Savage

2012

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiography makes an essential contribution to the processes of examination, diagnosis and treatment planning in dentistry. While the use of film-based imaging still predominates in dentistry, digital imaging is gaining wider acceptance and the use of this modality is anticipated to expand in the future. Two concerns associated with this transition have been raised in the literature. The first of these is the dissatisfaction experienced by many dental professionals with quality of digital radiographs when compared to plain film. In addition, there are indications that practitioners feel limited in their understanding of those factors impacting on digital image quality. One key area highlighted in the literature as having a significant influence on digital radiographic quality and interpretation concerns the performance of the display device. Within the last decade, research derived from the fields of medical radiology and physics have demonstrated that suboptimally performing displays degrade image quality, thereby increasing the potential for compromised diagnostic outcomes. In the field of medicine, this has resulted in the establishment of standards applicable to computer displays used in diagnostic radiology. Conversely, limited guidelines exist in the field of dentistry. The aim of this review is to provide an outline of these standards and highlight the important relationship between computer display performance and digital image quality.Keywords: Quality assurance and digital radiology, quality assurance and medical displays. CONCEPT OF THE DIGITAL IMAGING CHAINThe generation of a radiographic image, whether analogue or digital, is consequent to a series of steps. In analogue radiography information is recorded on emulsion-coated film, which then undergoes chemical processing to reveal the latent image. Techniques concerning patient positioning, exposure parameters and image processing all may influence the quality of the final product. Digital imaging is also dependent on these factors with the exception that information collection and processing is undertaken through electronic means.1 The distinct separation of the process of image acquisition, processing and display in digital radiography presents both advantages and disadvantages. With analogue film, alteration of image quality is possible at the time of image acquisition and processing. However, little or no manipulation of the image is possible after chemical processing has been completed. In digital radiography, the opportunity exists to influence and manipulate information at any time after image acquisition. A digital image can be altered as a consequence of the type of computer hardware, software and graphics system employed, or the type of monitor utilized to display the image. The capacity to alter digital images post-processing is also possible, and offers the opportunity to enhance image quality. Conversely, when digital image quality is less than ideal, it can be difficult to determine the precise cause.

show abstract

“…A number of studies have found that, under the conditions considered, medical grade LCDs were comparable with CRT monitors and hard-copy radiograph films for diagnostic readings in radiology 2,3,11,12,14,17. However, the use of office-grade monitors for diagnosis has been discouraged, despite some studies that demonstrated acceptable quality 6,7.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical and radiological image quality comparison of different liquid crystal displays for radiology

Dams¹,

Leung²,

Valk³

et al. 2014

MDER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo inform cost-effective decisions in purchasing new medical liquid crystal displays, we compared the image quality in displays made by three manufacturers.MethodsWe recruited 19 radiologists and residents to compare the image quality of four liquid crystal displays, including 3-megapixel Barco®, Eizo®, and NEC® displays and a 6-megapixel Barco display. The evaluators were blinded to the manufacturers’ names. Technical assessments were based on acceptance criteria and test patterns proposed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Radiological assessments were performed on images from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 18. They included X-ray images of the thorax, knee, and breast, a computed tomographic image of the thorax, and a magnetic resonance image of the brain. Image quality was scored on an analog scale (range 0–10). Statistical analysis was performed with repeated-measures analysis of variance.ResultsThe Barco 3-megapixel display passed all acceptance criteria. The Eizo and NEC displays passed the acceptance criteria, except for the darkest pixel value in the grayscale display function. The Barco 6-megapixel display failed criteria for the maximum luminance response and the veiling glare. Mean radiological assessment scores were 7.8±1.1 (Barco 3-megapixel), 7.8±1.2 (Eizo), 8.1±1.0 (NEC), and 8.1±1.0 (Barco 6-megapixel). No significant differences were found between displays.ConclusionAccording to the tested criteria, all the displays had comparable image quality; however, there was a three-fold difference in price between the most and least expensive displays.

show abstract

Grayscale calibration and quality assurance of diagnostic monitors in a PACS system

Abstract: Medical monitors turned out to be fully adequate to the task. Periodic QA tests are, however, absolutely necessary to ensure constant quality levels.

Cited by 8 publications

References 13 publications

Quality control evaluation of 37 liquid crystal displays used in diagnostic services

Quality control evaluation of 37 liquid crystal displays used in diagnostic services

The impact of computer display performance on the quality of digital radiographs: a review

Technical and radiological image quality comparison of different liquid crystal displays for radiology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About