ArticleImaging science in dentistry2021
Impact of viewing conditions on the performance assessment of different computer monitors used for dental diagnostics.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Dual-Branch Deep Learning Framework with Explainability for Dental Caries Classification Using Intra-Oral Photographs and Radiographs.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Interpretation time efficiency with radiographs: a comparison study between standard 6 and 12 MP high-resolution display monitors.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024Article
- Relationship between image information content and observer performance in digital intraoral radiography.Oral radiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to assess the computer monitors used for analysis and interpretation of digital radiographs within the clinics of the Oral Health Centre of Western Australia. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn total, 135 computer monitors (3 brands, 6 models) were assessed by analysing the same radiographic image of a combined 13-step aluminium step wedge and the Artinis CDDent 1.0® (Artinis Medical Systems B.V.®, Elst, the Netherlands) test object. The number of steps and cylindrical objects observed on each monitor was recorded along with the monitor's make, model, position relative to the researcher's eye level, and proximity to the nearest window. The number of window panels blocked by blinds, the outside weather conditions, and the number of ceiling lights over the surgical suite/cubicle were also recorded. MedCalc® version 19.2.1 (MedCalc Software Ltd®, Ostend, Belgium, https://www.medcalc.org; 2020) was used for statistical analyses (Kruskal-Wallis test and stepwise regression analysis). The level of significance was set at
resultsStepwise regression analysis showed that only the monitor brand and proximity of the monitor to a window had a significant impact on the monitor's performance (
conclusionThe vast performance variation present between computer monitors implies the need for a review of monitor selection, calibration, and viewing conditions.
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.