Korean J Radiol.  2003 Sep;4(3):153-156. 10.3348/kjr.2003.4.3.153.

Liquid-Crystal Display Monitors and Cathode-Ray Tube Monitors: A Comparison of Observer Performance in the Detection of Small Solitary Pulmonary Nodules

• Hwang SA
• Seo JB
• Choi BK
• Do KH
• Ko SM
• Lee SH
• Lee JS
• Song JW
• Song KS
• Lim TH

• KMID: 754018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2003.4.3.153

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
To compare observer performance using liquid-crystal display (LCD) and cathode-ray tube (CRT) monitors in the interpretation of soft-copy chest radiographs for the detection of small solitary pulmonary nodules. MATERIALS AND METHODS: By reviewing our Medical Center's radiologic information system, the eight radiologists participating in this study (three board-certified and five resident) retrospectively collected 40 chest radiographs showing a solitary noncalcified pulmonary nodule approximately 1 cm in diameter, and 40 normal chest radiographs. All were obtained using a storage-phosphor system, and CT scans of the same patients served as the gold standard for the presence of a pulmonary nodule. Digital images were displayed on both high-resolution LCD and CRT monitors. The readers were requested to rank each image using a five point scale (1 = definitely negative, 3 = equivocal or indeterminate, 5 = definitely positive), and the data were interpreted using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: The mean area under the ROC curve was 0.8901+/-0.0259 for the LCD session, and 0.8716+/-0.0266 for the CRT session (p > 0.05). The reading time for the LCD session was not significantly different from that for the CRT session (37.12 and 41.46 minutes, respectively; p = 0.889). CONCLUSION: For detecting small solitary pulmonary nodules, an LCD monitor and a CRT monitor are comparable.

Keyword

Diagnostic radiology, observer performance; Lung, nodule; Radiography, digital

Reference

1. Cook LT, Cox GG, Insana MF, et al. Comparison of a cathoderay tube and film for display of computed radiographic images. Med Phys. 1998. 25:1132–1138.

2. Razavi M, Sayre JW, Taira RK, et al. Receiver- operating- characteristic study of chest radiographs in children: digital hard-copy film vs 2K x 2K soft-copy images. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992. 158:443–448.

3. Krupinski E, Maloney K, Bessen SC, et al. Receiver operating characteristic evaluation of computer display of adult portable chest radiographs. Invest Radiol. 1994. 29:141–146.

4. Frank MS, Jost RG, Molina PL, et al. High-resolution computer display of portable chest radiographs of adults: suitability for primary interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993. 160:473–477.

5. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve. Radiology. 1982. 143:29–36.

6. Metz CE, Starr SJ, Lusted LB. Observer performance in detecting multiple radiographic signals. Radiology. 1976. 121:337–347.

7. Metz CE, Goodenough DJ, Rossmann K. Evaluation of receiver operating characteristic curve data in terms of information theory, with applications in radiography. Radiology. 1973. 109:297–303.

8. Dwyer AJ. In pursuit of a piece of the ROC. Radiology. 1996. 201:621–625.

9. Metz CE. ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol. 1986. 21:720–733.

10. Obuchowski NA. Sample size tables for receiver operating characteristics studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000. 175:603–608.

11. Bulpitt CJ. Confidence intervals. Lancet. 1987. 1:494–497.

12. Thaete FL, Fuhrman CR, Oliver JH, et al. Digital radiography and conventional imaging of the chest: a comparison of observer performance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994. 162:575–581.

13. Ishigaki T, Endo T, Ikeda M, et al. Subtle pulmonary disease: detection with computed radiography versus conventional chest radiography. Radiology. 1996. 201:51–60.

14. Blume H, Steven PM, Cobb M, Ho AM, Stevens F, Muller S. Characterization of high-resolution liquid-crystal displays for medical images. Proc SPIE. 2002. 4681:23–28.

15. Pavlicek W, Owen JM, Peter MB. Active-matrix liquid crystal displays for clinical imaging: comparison with cathode ray tube displays. J Digit Imaging. 2000. 13:155–161.