Reporting from monitors

  • R. Mayrhofer
  • G. Pärtan


During the last two decades medical imaging has moved more and more toward digital technology. At one hand, digital imaging has become a widely used replacement for conventional film in radiography (see Chapters 21 and 22, computed radiography and digital fluoroscopy), at the other hand the primarily digital cross sectional modalities contribute an ever increasing part of medical imaging.


Contrast Sensitivity Human Visual System Digital Radiography Conventional Film Luminance Range 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Wang J, Langer S (1997) A Brief Review of Human Perception Factors in Digital Displays for Picture Archiving and Communications Systems. Journal of Digital Imaging 10: 158–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Barten PGJ (1992) Model for the Contrast Sensitivity of the Human Eye. Proc SPIE 1666: 57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Flynn M et al (1999) High-Fidelity Electronic Display of Digital Radiographs. RadioGraphics 19: 16531669Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Blume H, Hemminger B (1997) Image Presentation in Digital Radiology: Perspectives on the Emerging DICOM Display Function Standard and Its Application. RadioGraphics 1 7: 769–777Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Mertelmeier T (1999) Why and how is soft copy reading possible in clinical practice? Journal of Digital Imaging 12: 3–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Gur D, Fuhrmann CR, Thaete FL (1993) Requirements for PACS: users perspective. RadioGraphics 13: 457460Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Oestmann JW, Greene RE (1992) Components and system layout for digital radiography. In: Greene RE, Oestmann JW (eds) Computed Digital Radiography in Clinical Practice. Thieme Medical Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Franken EA Jr, Berbaum KS, Marley SM, Smith WL, Sato Y, Kao SCS, Milam SG (1992) Evaluation of a digital workstation for interpreting neonatal examinations; a ROC study. Invest Radiol 27: 732–737PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Razavi M, Sayre JW, Taira RK, Simons M, Huang HK, Chuang KS, Rahbar G, Kangarloo H (1992) ReceiverOperating-Characteristic study of chest radiographs in children: digital hardcopy film vs. 2K x 2K soft-copy images. AJR 158:443–448, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Hayrapetian A, Aberle DR, Huang HK, Fiske R, Morioka C, Valentino D, Boechat MI (1989) Comparison of 2048-line digital display formats and conventional radiographs: a ROC study. AJR 152: 11131118Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Slasky BS, Gur D, Good WF, Costa-Greco MA, Harris KM, Cooperstein LA, Rockette HE (1990) Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis of chest image interpretation with conventional, laser-printed, and high-resolution workstation images. Radiology 174: 775–780PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Ackerman SJ, Gitlin JN, Gayler RW, Flagle CD, Bryan RN (1993) Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis of fracture and pneumonia detection: comparison of laser-digitized workstation images and conventional analog radiographs. Radiology 186: 263–268PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Cox GG, Cook LT, McMillan JH, Rosenthal SJ, Dwyer Ill Si (1990) Chest radiography: comparison of High-Resolution digital displays with conventional and digital film. Radiology 176: 771–776PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Frank MS, Jost RG, Molina PL, Anderson DJ, Solomon SL, Whitman RA, Moore SM (1993) High resolution computer display of portable, digital, chest radiographs in adults: suitability for primary interpretation. AJR 160: 473–477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Elam EA, Rehm K, Hillman BJ, Maloney K, Fajardo LL, McNeill K (1992) Efficacy of digital radiography for the detection of pneumothorax: comparison with conventional chest radiography. AJR 158: 509–514PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Thaete FL, Fuhrmann CR, Oliver JH et al (1994) Digital radiography and conventional imaging of the chest: a comparison of observer performance. AJR 162: 575–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Krupinski EA, Maloney K, Bessen SC, Capp MP, Graham K, Hunt R, Lund P, Ovitt T, Standen JR (1994) Receiver Operating Characteristic evaluation of cornputer display of adult portable chest radiographs. Invest Radiol 29: 141–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Pärtan G, Mosser H, Tekusch A, Mathiaschitz U, Augustin I, Hruby W (1994) Reporting digital bedside chest radiographs from monitor vs. hardcopy — a clinical ROC study. RoFo 161 (4): 354–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Rosenthal MS, Good WF, Costa-Greco MA, Miketic LM, Eelkema EA, Gur D, Rockette HE (1990) The effect of image processing on chest radiograph interpretations in a PACS environment. Invest Radiol 25: 897–901PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Mosser H, Pärtan G, Urban, Hruby W (1993) Routinely reporting from monitor: is 2K resolution really necessary? (abstract). 8th European Congress of Radiology, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Fraser RG, Paré JAP, Paré PD, Fraser RS, Genereux GP (1977–1988) Perception in chest roentgenology. In: Fraser RG, Paré JAP, Paré PD, Fraser RS, Genereux GP (eds) Diagnosis of diseases of the chest. 2nd ed. W.B. Saunder, Philadelphia, 291–296Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Otto D et al (1998) Subtle pulmonary abnormalities: Detection on monitors with varying spatial resolutions and maximum luminance levels compared with detection on storage phosphor radiographic hard copies Radiology 207: 237–242Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Herron J et al (2000) Effects of Luminance and Resolution on Observer Performance with Chest Radiographs. Radiology 215: 169–174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Gur D et al (1994) Sequential Viewing of Abdominal CT Images at Varying Rates Radiology 191: 119–122Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Seltzer S et al (1995) Spiral CT of the chest: Comparison of cine and film-based viewing. Radiology 197: 73–78PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Mayrhofer
    • 1
  • G. Pärtan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyDanube HospitalViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations