Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26662032›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2016

Effect of display type and room illuminance in chest radiographs.

Esa Liukkonen, Airi Jartti, Marianne Haapea, Heljä Oikarinen, Lauri Ahvenjärvi, Seija Mattila, Terhi Nevala, Kari Palosaari, Marja Perhomaa, Miika T Nieminen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Considerations for digital pathology displays.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026
    Review
  3. Bringing light to the reading room.Frontiers in radiology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Esa LiukkonenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, P.O. BOX 50, Fin-90029 OYS, Oulu, Finland. esa.liukkonen@ppshp.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2366-7938
Airi JarttiDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, P.O. BOX 50, Fin-90029 OYS, Oulu, Finland.
Marianne HaapeaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, P.O. BOX 50, Fin-90029 OYS, Oulu, Finland.
Heljä OikarinenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, P.O. BOX 50, Fin-90029 OYS, Oulu, Finland.
Lauri AhvenjärviDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, P.O. BOX 50, Fin-90029 OYS, Oulu, Finland.
Seija MattilaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, P.O. BOX 50, Fin-90029 OYS, Oulu, Finland.
Terhi NevalaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, P.O. BOX 50, Fin-90029 OYS, Oulu, Finland.
Kari PalosaariDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, P.O. BOX 50, Fin-90029 OYS, Oulu, Finland.
Marja PerhomaaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, P.O. BOX 50, Fin-90029 OYS, Oulu, Finland.
Miika T NieminenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, P.O. BOX 50, Fin-90029 OYS, Oulu, Finland.
Oulu University Hospital · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare diagnostic accuracy in the detection of subtle chest lesions on digital chest radiographs using medical-grade displays, consumer-grade displays, and tablet devices under bright and dim ambient light.

methodsFive experienced radiologists independently assessed 50 chest radiographs (32 with subtle pulmonary findings and 18 without apparent findings) under bright (510 lx) and dim (16 lx) ambient lighting. Computed tomography was used as the reference standard for interstitial and nodular lesions and follow-up chest radiograph for pneumothorax. Diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity were calculated for assessments carried out in all displays and compared using the McNemar test. The level of significance was set to p < 0.05.

resultsSignificant differences in sensitivity between the assessments under bright and dim lighting were found among consumer-grade displays in interstitial opacities with, and in pneumothorax without, Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine-Grayscale Standard Display Function (DICOM-GSDF) calibration. Compared to 6 megapixel (MP) display under bright lighting, sensitivity in pneumothorax was lower in the tablet device and the consumer-grade display. Sensitivity in interstitial opacities was lower in the DICOM-GSDF calibrated consumer-grade display.

conclusionsA consumer-grade display with or without DICOM-GSDF calibration or a tablet device is not suitable for reading digital chest radiographs in bright lighting. No significant differences were observed between five displays in dim light. KEY POINTS: • Ambient lighting affects performance of consumer-grade displays (with or without DICOM-GSDF calibration). • Bright light decreases detection of pneumothorax on non-medical displays. • Bright light decreases detection of interstitial opacities on DICOM-GSDF-calibrated, consumer-grade displays. • Dim light is sufficient to detect subtle chest lesions from all displays.

Indexed as

Data DisplayLightingCalibrationHumansPneumothoraxRadiographic Image EnhancementRadiography, ThoracicCalibrationChest radiographyData displayDigital radiographyIllumination

Identifiers

PMID26662032
OpenAlexW2269857928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.