Trial reportEuropean radiology2017
Comparison of medical-grade and calibrated consumer-grade displays for diagnosis of subtle bone fissures.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Considerations for digital pathology displays.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Review
- Comparative Analysis of Total Cost of Ownership: Commercial-Grade versus Diagnostic-Grade Displays in Remote Radiology Workstations.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- The Hidden Variable in Radiological Accuracy: The Impact of Monitor Quality Under Real-Life Emergency Department Conditions.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- Technical requirements and optimization strategies for home-based teleradiology workstations: a review article.Insights into imaging · 2025Review
- Tablets as an Option for Telemedicine-Evaluation of Diagnostic Performance and Efficiency in Intracranial Arterial Aneurysm Detection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Reproducible Color Gamut of Hematoxylin and Eosin Stained Images in Standard Color Spaces.Journal of pathology informatics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.