Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Interpretation of Digital Chest Radiographs: Comparison of Light Emitting Diode versus Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamp Backlit Monitors

  • Lim, Hyun-Ju (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Chung, Myung Jin (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Geewon (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Yie, Miyeon (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Shin, Kyung Eun (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Moon, Jung Won (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Kyung Soo (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2013.01.08
  • Accepted : 2013.08.05
  • Published : 2013.11.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance of light emitting diode (LED) backlight monitors and cold cathode fluorescent lamp (CCFL) monitors for the interpretation of digital chest radiographs. Materials and Methods: We selected 130 chest radiographs from health screening patients. The soft copy image data were randomly sorted and displayed on a 3.5 M LED (2560 ${\times}$ 1440 pixels) monitor and a 3 M CCFL (2048 ${\times}$ 1536 pixels) monitor. Eight radiologists rated their confidence in detecting nodules and abnormal interstitial lung markings (ILD). Low dose chest CT images were used as a reference standard. The performance of the monitor systems was assessed by analyzing 2080 observations and comparing them by multi-reader, multi-case receiver operating characteristic analysis. The observers reported visual fatigue and a sense of heat. Radiant heat and brightness of the monitors were measured. Results: Measured brightness was 291 $cd/m^2$ for the LED and 354 $cd/m^2$ for the CCFL monitor. Area under curves for nodule detection were 0.721 ${\pm}$ 0.072 and 0.764 ${\pm}$ 0.098 for LED and CCFL (p = 0.173), whereas those for ILD were 0.871 ${\pm}$ 0.073 and 0.844 ${\pm}$ 0.068 (p = 0.145), respectively. There were no significant differences in interpretation time (p = 0.446) or fatigue score (p = 0.102) between the two monitors. Sense of heat was lower for the LED monitor (p = 0.024). The temperature elevation was $6.7^{\circ}C$ for LED and $12.4^{\circ}C$ for the CCFL monitor. Conclusion: Although the LED monitor had lower maximum brightness compared with the CCFL monitor, soft copy reading of the digital chest radiographs on LED and CCFL showed no difference in terms of diagnostic performance. In addition, LED emitted less heat.

Keywords

References

  1. Iwano S, Ishigaki T, Shimamoto K, Inamura K, Maeda T, Ikeda M, et al. Detection of subtle pulmonary disease on CR chest images: monochromatic CRT monitor vs color CRT monitor. Eur Radiol 2001;11:59-64 https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300000522
  2. ACR-AAPM-SIIM Technical standard for electronic practice of medical imaging. American college of Radiology (ACR) Web site. http://www.acr.org/. Accessed January 1, 2013 (revised 2012)
  3. Muraoka T, Nakashima N, Mizushina S, Ikeda H, Shimodaira Y. Subjective Evaluation of Physiological Fatigue in Video Data Terminal Operation. Portland: Proceedings of Image Processing, Image Quality, Image Capture, System Conference, The Society for Imaging Science and Technology, 1998:266-270
  4. Zwanenburg M, Dunn T, Stich A, Schwelder W, Plotz L. High-Efficiency LEDs for LCD Backlight. SID 04 Symposium Digest, 2004:326-329, D01:10.1889/1.1821338
  5. Anandan M. LED Backlight: Enhancement of picture quality on LCD screen. Proc of ASID 2006:130-134
  6. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992;27:723-731 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004424-199209000-00015
  7. Obuchowski NA. New methodological tools for multiple-reader ROC studies. Radiology 2007;243:10-12 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2432060387
  8. Indrajit I, Verma B. Monitor displays in radiology: Part 1. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2009;19:24-28 https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-3026.45341
  9. Usami H, Ikeda M, Ishigaki T, Fukushima H, Shimamoto K. The influence of liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors on observer performance for the detection of nodular lesions on chest radiographs. Eur Radiol 2006;16:726-732 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-0030-3
  10. Sund P, Bath M, Kheddache S, Mansson LG. Comparison of visual grading analysis and determination of detective quantum efficiency for evaluating system performance in digital chest radiography. Eur Radiol 2004;14:48-58 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-1971-z
  11. Understanding LCD Monitors: Brightness and Contrast. http:// www.nettivire.fi/kirkkaustiedote.pdf/. Accessed January 3, 2013
  12. Carrein G. Barco White Paper: 10 reasons to use a medical display system. Barco Web site. http://www.barco.com/ barcoview/downloads/10_reasons_to_use_a_medical_ display_system.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2013 (published 2006)
  13. ACR standard for digital image data management. American college of Radiology (ACR) Web site. http://www.acr.org/. Accessed January 2, 2013 (amended 2006)
  14. Goo JM, Choi JY, Im JG, Lee HJ, Chung MJ, Han D, et al. Effect of monitor luminance and ambient light on observer performance in soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs. Radiology 2004;232:762-766 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2323030628
  15. Krupinski EA. Medical grade vs off-the-shelf color displays: influence on observer performance and visual search. J Digit Imaging 2009;22:363-368 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-008-9156-6

Cited by

  1. Effect of display type and room illuminance in chest radiographs vol.26, pp.9, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4150-0
  2. Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation? vol.17, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.706
  3. Thermal performance of direct illumination high-power LED backlight units with different assembling structures vol.53, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00231-016-1925-z
  4. Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal vol.18, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2017.18.6.888