These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Imaging acquisition display performance: an evaluation and discussion of performance metrics and procedures.
    Author: Silosky MS, Marsh RM, Scherzinger AL.
    Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2016 Jul 08; 17(4):334-341. PubMed ID: 27455501.
    Abstract:
    When The Joint Commission updated its Requirements for Diagnostic Imaging Services for hospitals and ambulatory care facilities on July 1, 2015, among the new requirements was an annual performance evaluation for acquisition workstation displays. The purpose of this work was to evaluate a large cohort of acquisition displays used in a clinical environment and compare the results with existing performance standards provided by the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). Measurements of the minimum luminance, maximum luminance, and luminance uniformity, were performed on 42 acquisition displays across multiple imaging modalities. The mean values, standard deviations, and ranges were calculated for these metrics. Additionally, visual evaluations of contrast, spatial resolution, and distortion were performed using either the Society of Motion Pictures and Television Engineers test pattern or the TG-18-QC test pattern. Finally, an evaluation of local nonuniformities was performed using either a uniform white display or the TG-18-UN80 test pattern. Displays tested were flat panel, liquid crystal displays that ranged from less than 1 to up to 10 years of use and had been built by a wide variety of manufacturers. The mean values for Lmin and Lmax for the displays tested were 0.28 ± 0.13 cd/m2 and 135.07 ± 33.35 cd/m2, respectively. The mean maximum luminance deviation for both ultrasound and non-ultrasound displays was 12.61% ± 4.85% and 14.47% ± 5.36%, respectively. Visual evaluation of display performance varied depending on several factors including brightness and contrast settings and the test pattern used for image quality assessment. This work provides a snapshot of the performance of 42 acquisition displays across several imaging modalities in clinical use at a large medical center. Comparison with existing performance standards reveals that changes in display technology and the move from cathode ray tube displays to flat panel displays may have rendered some of the tests inappropriate for modern use.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]