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

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.

[1]  G G Cox,et al.  Comparison of a cathode-ray-tube and film for display of computed radiographic images. , 1998, Medical physics.

[2]  C A Britton,et al.  Digital radiography and conventional imaging of the chest: a comparison of observer performance. , 1994, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  T Endo,et al.  Subtle pulmonary disease: detection with computed radiography versus conventional chest radiography. , 1996, Radiology.

[4]  Hale Je,et al.  Identification of ampoules. , 1973 .

[5]  C E Metz,et al.  Evaluation of receiver operating characteristic curve data in terms of information theory, with applications in radiography. , 1973, Radiology.

[6]  C. Metz.  ROC Methodology in Radiologic Imaging , 1986, Investigative radiology.

[7]  R K Taira,et al.  Receiver-operating-characteristic study of chest radiographs in children: digital hard-copy film vs 2K x 2K soft-copy images. , 1992, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[9]  D J Anderson,et al.  High-resolution computer display of portable, digital, chest radiographs of adults: suitability for primary interpretation. , 1993, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  G. Newman,et al.  CONFIDENCE INTERVALS , 1987, The Lancet.

[11]  C E Metz,et al.  Observer performance in detecting multiple radiographic signals. Prediction and analysis using a generalized ROC approach. , 1976, Radiology.

[12]  A. Dwyer,et al.  In pursuit of a piece of the ROC. , 1996, Radiology.

[13]  M P Capp,et al.  Receiver Operating Characteristic Evaluation of Computer Display of Adult Portable Chest Radiographs , 1994, Investigative radiology.

[14]  Jiahua Fan,et al.  Characterization of high-resolution liquid crystal displays for medical images , 2002, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[15]  N A Obuchowski,et al.  Sample size tables for receiver operating characteristic studies. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.