title: Comparison of 3MP medical-grade to 1MP office-grade LCD monitors in mammographic diagnostic and perceptual performance.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Picture archiving and communication systems images designed to be viewed on high-resolution medical-grade monitors are routinely viewed on office-grade monitors on the wards or at home. This study aimed to determine whether a statistically significant difference in diagnostic (cancer detection) and perceptual (microcalcification detection) performance exists between 3MP grade and 1MP office-grade monitors.
  
  
  METHODS
  3MP Dome medical-grade liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors (Planar, Beaverton, OR, USA) were compared to 1MP Dell office-grade LCD monitors (Dell Inc, Round Rock, TX, USA). Eight radiologists (reader experience 8-30 years) read the same set of 100 mammograms (23/100 with proven cancers and 52/100 with microcalcifications) presented in random order on three occasions separated by two time intervals of 12 weeks. Reads 1 and 3 utilised 3MP monitors and formed the baseline read. Read 2 utilised 1MP monitors and constituted the experimental read. Reading conditions were standardised. Readers were aware of which monitors they were using. Multivariate logistic regression analysis (to account for reader variability and monitor impact) was performed to assess for statistical significance.
  
  
  RESULTS
  At α = 5%, confidence intervals analysis comparing the measured parameters between 1MP to 3MP monitors demonstrated no statistically significant difference in diagnostic and perceptual performance for the reader group. In cancer detection (the diagnostic task), reader accuracy remained high irrespective of monitor type. Regression analysis comparing performance with 1MP against 3MP monitors found P values of 0.693 and 0.324 for diagnostic and perceptual performance, respectively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There were no statistically and clinically significant differences between 3MP and 1MP monitors in mammographic diagnostic and perceptual performance. Comparable performance may be due to compensatory behaviour by readers.
authors.affiliation: University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. a.ong4@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au
authors.forename: Aaron H J
authors.initials: AH
authors.lastname: Ong
authors.forename: Alexander G
authors.initials: AG
authors.lastname: Pitman
authors.forename: Shu Yi
authors.initials: SY
authors.lastname: Tan
authors.forename: Samuel
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Gledhill
authors.forename: Oliver
authors.initials: O
authors.lastname: Hennessy
authors.forename: Belinda
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Lui
authors.forename: Wayne
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Lemish
authors.forename: Paul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Tauro
authors.forename: Colin
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Styles
authors.forename: Emma
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Pun
authors.forename: John
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Waugh
authors.forename: Meenakshi
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Padmanabhan
authors.forename: Allan
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Lee
mesh_terms: D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D003626:Data Display; D003937:Diagnosis, Differential; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D050866:Liquid Crystals; D016015:Logistic Models; D008327:Mammography / Q000295:instrumentation*; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D011873:Radiology Information Systems / Q000295:instrumentation*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity