A systematic review of viewing conditions and monitor specifications in mammography. Issue 4 (November 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Papathanasiou, S.; Walton, L.A.; Thompson, J.D.
• Is Part Of: Radiography. Volume 26:Issue 4(2020)
• Page Start: 325
• Page End: 331
• Publication Date: 2020-11
• Subjects: Mammography -- Image quality -- Ambient lighting -- Monitors -- Viewing conditions; Diagnostic imaging -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Diagnostic Imaging -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Imagerie pour le diagnostic -- Périodiques; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Cancer -- Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.0757
• DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2020.03.001
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1078-8174

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: The purpose of this systematic review was to establish the current status of recommended monitor specifications and viewing conditions in mammography for image acquisition and reporting rooms. A literature search was completed between August 2018 and March 2019 using ScienceDirect, PubMed, Web of Science and MEDLINE databases. An additional manual search was performed to identify relevant guidelines to support the review. Only articles and guidelines written in English were included. Key findings: Results were selected according to the following criteria; articles detailing (i) monitor specification and, (ii) viewing conditions in mammography acquisition and reporting rooms. Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Six papers described monitor specifications, five described viewing conditions and ten guideline documents were identified from the UK, Europe and the US. Common outcomes were that monitors with 3 or 5 MP resolution seemed to be preferred and at the same time higher illumination levels (>15 lux) were found to decrease the luminance of the monitors and negatively impact the assessment of image quality. Contrary to this, the majority of guideline documents recommended illumination levels above 20 Lux. Finally, there is a lack of guidance for viewing conditions in acquisition rooms. Conclusion: This review did not reveal any strong evidence for the proposed room illumination levels in acquisition rooms. In reference to monitors specifications, there is preference for using higher resolution displays (3 and 5 MP) but again, the evidence is not strong. Moreover, variance exists in the guidelines and that promotes inconsistency in mammography departments. Implications for practice: This review highlights the lack of standardised guidelines and the need for further research on the viewing conditions and monitor specifications for the acquisition rooms in mammography.