Imaging Sci Dent.  2011 Mar;41(1):11-16. 10.5624/isd.2011.41.1.11.

Effect of LCD monitor type and observer experience on diagnostic performance in soft-copy interpretations of the maxillary sinus on panoramic radiographs

• Kim TY
• Choi JW
• Lee SS
• Huh KH
• Yi WJ
• Heo MS
• Choi SC

• KMID: 1974394
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5624/isd.2011.41.1.11

Abstract

PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor type and observer experience on the diagnostic performance in soft-copy interpretations of maxillary sinus inflammatory lesions on panoramic radiographs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Ninety maxillary sinuses on panoramic images were grouped into negative and positive groups according to the presence of inflammatory lesions, using CT for confirmation. Monochrome and color LCDs were used. Six observers participated and ROC analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance. The reading time, fatigue score, and inter-/intra-observer agreements were assessed.
RESULTS
The interpretation of maxillary sinus inflammatory lesions was affected by the LCD monitor type used and by the experience of the observer. The reading time was not significantly different, however the fatigue score was significantly different between two LCD monitors. Inter-observer agreement was relatively good in experienced observers, while the intra-observer agreement for all observers was good with monochrome LCD but not with color LCD.
CONCLUSION
The less experienced observers showed lowered diagnostic ability with a general color LCD.

Keyword

Maxillary Sinus; Task Performance; ROC curve

MeSH Terms

Fatigue
Liquid Crystals
Maxillary Sinus
Organothiophosphorus Compounds
ROC Curve
Task Performance and Analysis
Organothiophosphorus Compounds

Reference

1. Arenson RL, Chakraborty DP, Seshadri SB, Kundel HL. The digital imaging workstation. Radiology. 1990. 176:303–315.

2. Gotfredsen E, Wenzel A. Integration of multiple direct digital imaging sources in a picture archiving and communication system (PACS). Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2003. 32:337–342.

3. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, Muller KE, Hemminger BM, Brown ML, et al. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology. 2002. 223:483–488.

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

5. Molander B, Grondahl HG, Ekestubbe A. Quality of film-based and digital panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004. 33:32–36.

6. Ishigaki T, Endo T, Ikeda M, Kono M, Yoshida S, Ikezoe J, et al. Subtle pulmonary disease: detection with computed radiography versus conventional chest radiography. Radiology. 1996. 201:51–60.

7. Goo JM, Choi JY, Im JG, Lee HJ, Chung MJ, Han D, et al. Effect of monitor luminance and ambient light on observer performance in soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs. Radiology. 2004. 232:762–766.

8. Otto D, Bernhardt TM, Rapp-Bernhardt U, Ludwig K, Kastner A, Liehr UB, et al. Subtle pulmonary abnormalities: detection on monitors with varying spatial resolutions and maximum luminance levels compared with detection on storage phosphor radiographic hard copies. Radiology. 1998. 207:237–242.

9. Weatherburn GC, Ridout D, Strickland NH, Robins P, Glastonbury CM, Curati W, et al. A comparison of conventional film, CR hard copy and PACS soft copy images of the chest: analyses of ROC curves and inter-observer agreement. Eur J Radiol. 2003. 47:206–214.

10. Slasky BS, Gur D, Good WF, Costa-Greco MA, Harris KM, Cooperstein LA, et al. Receiver operating characteristic analysis of chest image interpretation with conventional, laser-printed, and high-resolution workstation images. Radiology. 1990. 174:775–780.

11. MacMahon H, Vyborny CJ, Metz CE, Doi K, Sabeti V, Solomon SL. Digital radiography of subtle pulmonary abnormalities: an ROC study of the effect of pixel size on observer performance. Radiology. 1986. 158:21–26.

12. Partan G, Mayrhofer R, Urban M, Wassipaul M, Pichler L, Hruby W. Diagnostic performance of liquid crystal and cathoderay-tube monitors in brain computed tomography. Eur Radiol. 2003. 13:2397–2401.

13. Heo MS, Han DH, An BM, Huh KH, Yi WJ, Lee SS, et al. Effect of ambient light and bit depth of digital radiograph on observer performance in determination of endodontic file positioning. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008. 105:239–244.

14. Heo MS, Choi DH, Benavides E, Huh KH, Yi WJ, Lee SS, et al. Effect of bit depth and kVp of digital radiography for detection of subtle differences. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009. 108:278–283.

15. Hellen-Halme K, Nilsson M, Petersson A. Effect of monitors on approximal caries detection in digital radiographs - standard versus precalibrated DICOM part 14 displays: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009. 107:716–720.

16. Wenzel A, Haiter-Neto F, Gotfredsen E. Influence of spatial resolution and bit depth on detection of small caries lesions with digital receptors. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007. 103:418–422.

17. Pjetursson BE, Tan WC, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. J Clin Periodontol. 2008. 35:216–240.

18. Tan WC, Lang NP, Zwahlen M, Pjetursson BE. A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. Part II: transalveolar technique. J Clin Periodontol. 2008. 35:241–254.

19. Koymen R, Gocmen-Mas N, Karacayli U, Ortakoglu K, Ozen T, Yazici AC. Anatomic evaluation of maxillary sinus septa: surgery and radiology. Clin Anat. 2009. 22:563–570.

20. Lee SS, Choi SC. Radiographic examination for successful dental implant. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol. 2005. 35:63–68.

21. Hyun YM, Lee SS, Choi SC. Comparison of Waters' radiography, panoramic radiography, and computed tomography in the diagnosis of antral mucosal thickening. J Korean Acad Oral Maxillofac Radiol. 1998. 28:261–269.

22. Lee ES, Park CS. Usefulness of panoramic radiography in the detection of maxillary sinus pathosis. J Korean Acad Oral Maxillofac Radiol. 1999. 29:223–239.

23. Pavlicek W, Owen JM, Peter MB. Active matrix liquid crystal displays for clinical imaging: comparison with cathode ray tube displays. J Digit Imaging. 2000. 13:2 Suppl 1. 155–161.

24. Herron JM, Bender TM, Campbell WL, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, Gur D. Effects of luminance and resolution on observer performance with chest radiographs. Radiology. 2000. 215:169–174.

25. Potchen EJ, Cooper TG, Sierra AE, Aben GR, Potchen MJ, Potter MG, et al. Measuring performance in chest radiography. Radiology. 2000. 217:456–459.

26. Quekel LG, Kessels AG, Goei R, van Engelshoven JM. Detection of lung cancer on the chest radiograph: a study on observer performance. Eur J Radiol. 2001. 39:111–116.