Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28660305›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2017

Comparison of medical-grade and calibrated consumer-grade displays for diagnosis of subtle bone fissures.

Daniel Pinto Dos Santos, Jonas Welter, Tilman Emrich, Florian Jungmann, Evelyn Dappa, Peter Mildenberger, Roman Kloeckner

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Considerations for digital pathology displays.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel Pinto Dos SantosDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany. daniel.pinto-dos-santos@uk-koeln.de.
Jonas WelterDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Tilman EmrichDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Florian JungmannDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Evelyn DappaDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Peter MildenbergerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Roman KloecknerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEUniversity Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of medical-grade and calibrated consumer-grade digital displays for the detection of subtle bone fissures.

methodsThree experienced radiologists assessed 96 digital radiographs, 40 without and 56 with subtle bone fissures, for the presence or absence of fissures in various bones using one consumer-grade and two medical-grade displays calibrated according to the DICOM-Grayscale Standard Display Function. The reference standard was consensus reading. Subjective image quality was also assessed by the three readers. Statistical analysis was performed using receiver operating characteristic analysis and by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, and Youden's J for each combination of reader and display. Cohen's unweighted kappa was calculated to assess inter-rater agreement. Subjective image quality was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

resultsNo significant differences were found for the assessment of subjective image quality. Diagnostic performance was similar across all readers and displays, with Youden's J ranging from 0.443 to 0.661. The differences were influenced more by the reader than by the display used for the assessment.

conclusionNo significant differences were found between medical-grade and calibrated consumer-grade displays with regard to their diagnostic performance in assessing subtle bone fissures. Calibrated consumer-grade displays may be sufficient for most radiological examinations. KEY POINTS: • Diagnostic performance of calibrated consumer-grade displays is comparable to medical-grade displays. • There is no significant difference with regard to subjective image quality. • Use of calibrated consumer-grade displays could cut display costs by 60-80%.

Indexed as

CalibrationData DisplayFractures, BoneHumansObserver VariationQuality Assurance, Health CareRadiographic Image EnhancementROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray ComputedComputer TerminalsDiagnostic ImagingFractures, BoneQuality Assurance, Health CareRadiography

Identifiers

PMID28660305
OpenAlexW2733196263

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.