ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2026
The Hidden Variable in Radiological Accuracy: The Impact of Monitor Quality Under Real-Life Emergency Department Conditions.
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesRadiological assessment has become indispensable for modern clinical decision-making. Image quality plays a critical role in the reliability of radiological interpretation. Unlike most previous studies, this study investigated the effect of monitor type on diagnostic accuracy and ease of diagnosis under physical conditions outside the radiology unit.
methodsThree image sets were prepared for the study, consisting of emergency radiological images, each containing 50 computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and digital radiography images. The image sets were examined by five emergency specialists, who were blinded to each other's work, under emergency service conditions on a standard monitor (SM), medical monitor (MM), and advanced monitor (AM). The accuracy and ease of diagnosis were analyzed statistically according to the type of monitor used.
resultsOverall diagnostic accuracy rates were 98.7% for SM, 100% for AM, and 100% for MM. Cochran's Q test demonstrated a statistically significant difference between monitor types (
conclusionsIn situations where medical monitors cannot be used due to cost and operational constraints, opting for advanced monitors instead of standard monitors may modestly improve diagnostic accuracy while substantially enhancing perceived ease of diagnosis.
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.