Radiology, Vol 174, 769-773, Copyright © 1990 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Display of CT studies on a two-screen electronic workstation versus a film panel alternator: sensitivity and efficiency among radiologists

WD Foley, DR Jacobson, AJ Taylor, LR Goodman, ET Stewart, JW Gurney and D Stroka
Department of Radiology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee 53226.

Prototype electronic workstations incorporated in networks linking computed tomographic (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging systems are being developed. The authors compared observer efficiency and sensitivity in reading body CT studies from a two-screen workstation (1,000-line monitors and 12-bit dynamic range in image memory) and conventional film panel alternator. The two-screen workstation displayed 32 images at a matrix resolution of 256 x 256 or eight images at a matrix resolution of 512 x 512 simultaneously. Ninety-six images with a matrix resolution of 512 x 512 could be displayed simultaneously at the film panel alternator. Four observers read images from 20 cases, 10 with repeat examinations, in a randomized viewing sequence. There was an average of 32 images per case. Reporting time was less with the film panel alternator (average, 5.08 minutes) than with the workstation (average, 6.66 minutes). There was improved sensitivity for all observers in reading from the film panel alternator (range, 1%-12%) (P less than .05). In complex cases evaluated by means of body CT, the current prototype two-screen electronic workstation is limited by display capabilities.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. I. Reiner, E. L. Siegel, and F. J. Hooper Accuracy of Interpretation of CT Scans: Comparing PACS Monitor Displays and Hard-Copy Images Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2002; 179(6): 1407 - 1410. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. D. Pisano, E. B. Cole, E. O. Kistner, K. E. Muller, B. M. Hemminger, M. L. Brown, R. E. Johnston, C. M. Kuzmiak, M. P. Braeuning, R. I. Freimanis, et al. Interpretation of Digital Mammograms: Comparison of Speed and Accuracy of Soft-Copy versus Printed-Film Display Radiology, May 1, 2002; (2002) 2232010704. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				A. Y. Kim, K. S. Cho, K.-S. Song, J. H. Kim, J.-G. Kim, and H. K. Ha Urinary Calculi on Computed Radiography: Comparison of Observer Performance with Hard-Copy Versus Soft-Copy Images on Different Viewer Systems Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2001; 177(2): 331 - 335. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. I. Reiner, E. L. Siegel, F. J. Hooper, S. Pomerantz, A. Dahlke, and D. Rallis Radiologists' Productivity in the Interpretation of CT Scans: A Comparison of PACS with Conventional Film Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2001; 176(4): 861 - 864. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. D. Pisano, E. B. Cole, E. O. Kistner, K. E. Muller, B. M. Hemminger, M. L. Brown, R. E. Johnston, C. M. Kuzmiak, M. P. Braeuning, R. I. Freimanis, et al. Interpretation of Digital Mammograms: Comparison of Speed and Accuracy of Soft-Copy versus Printed-Film Display Radiology, May 1, 2002; 223(2): 483 - 488. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]