Back to Journals » Medical Devices: Evidence and Research » Volume 7

Technical and radiological image quality comparison of different liquid crystal displays for radiology

Authors Dams F, Leung K, van der Valk PH, Kock MC, Bosman J, Niehof SP

Received 9 May 2014

Accepted for publication 9 June 2014

Published 31 October 2014 Volume 2014:7 Pages 371—377

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S67443

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 3


Francina EM Dams,2 KY Esther Leung,1 Pieter HM van der Valk,2 Marc CJM Kock,2 Jeroen Bosman,1 Sjoerd P Niehof1

1Medical Physics and Technology, 2Department of Radiology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, The Netherlands

Background: To inform cost-effective decisions in purchasing new medical liquid crystal displays, we compared the image quality in displays made by three manufacturers.
Methods: We recruited 19 radiologists and residents to compare the image quality of four liquid crystal displays, including 3-megapixel Barco®, Eizo®, and NEC® displays and a 6-megapixel Barco display. The evaluators were blinded to the manufacturers' names. Technical assessments were based on acceptance criteria and test patterns proposed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Radiological assessments were performed on images from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 18. They included X-ray images of the thorax, knee, and breast, a computed tomographic image of the thorax, and a magnetic resonance image of the brain. Image quality was scored on an analog scale (range 0–10). Statistical analysis was performed with repeated-measures analysis of variance.
Results: The Barco 3-megapixel display passed all acceptance criteria. The Eizo and NEC displays passed the acceptance criteria, except for the darkest pixel value in the grayscale display function. The Barco 6-megapixel display failed criteria for the maximum luminance response and the veiling glare. Mean radiological assessment scores were 7.8±1.1 (Barco 3-megapixel), 7.8±1.2 (Eizo), 8.1±1.0 (NEC), and 8.1±1.0 (Barco 6-megapixel). No significant differences were found between displays.
Conclusion: According to the tested criteria, all the displays had comparable image quality; however, there was a three-fold difference in price between the most and least expensive displays.

Keywords: data display, humans, radiographic image enhancement, user-computer interface, liquid crystals

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]