Cargando…

Imaging acquisition display performance: an evaluation and discussion of performance metrics and procedures

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 coho...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Silosky, Michael S., Marsh, Rebecca M., Scherzinger, Ann L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690030/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27455501
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i4.6220
_version_ 1783279513539444736
author Silosky, Michael S.
Marsh, Rebecca M.
Scherzinger, Ann L.
author_facet Silosky, Michael S.
Marsh, Rebecca M.
Scherzinger, Ann L.
author_sort Silosky, Michael S.
collection PubMed
description 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 [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] for the displays tested were [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] , respectively. The mean maximum luminance deviation for both ultrasound and non‐ultrasound displays was [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] , 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. PACS number(s): 87.57.‐s, 87.57.C‐
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5690030
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56900302018-04-02 Imaging acquisition display performance: an evaluation and discussion of performance metrics and procedures Silosky, Michael S. Marsh, Rebecca M. Scherzinger, Ann L. J Appl Clin Med Phys Medical Imaging 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 [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] for the displays tested were [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] , respectively. The mean maximum luminance deviation for both ultrasound and non‐ultrasound displays was [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] , 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. PACS number(s): 87.57.‐s, 87.57.C‐ John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5690030/ /pubmed/27455501 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i4.6220 Text en © 2016 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Medical Imaging
Silosky, Michael S.
Marsh, Rebecca M.
Scherzinger, Ann L.
Imaging acquisition display performance: an evaluation and discussion of performance metrics and procedures
title Imaging acquisition display performance: an evaluation and discussion of performance metrics and procedures
title_full Imaging acquisition display performance: an evaluation and discussion of performance metrics and procedures
title_fullStr Imaging acquisition display performance: an evaluation and discussion of performance metrics and procedures
title_full_unstemmed Imaging acquisition display performance: an evaluation and discussion of performance metrics and procedures
title_short Imaging acquisition display performance: an evaluation and discussion of performance metrics and procedures
title_sort imaging acquisition display performance: an evaluation and discussion of performance metrics and procedures
topic Medical Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690030/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27455501
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i4.6220
work_keys_str_mv AT siloskymichaels imagingacquisitiondisplayperformanceanevaluationanddiscussionofperformancemetricsandprocedures
AT marshrebeccam imagingacquisitiondisplayperformanceanevaluationanddiscussionofperformancemetricsandprocedures
AT scherzingerannl imagingacquisitiondisplayperformanceanevaluationanddiscussionofperformancemetricsandprocedures