BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

British Journal of Radiology (2003) 76, 94-97
© 2003 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/92036272

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McCarthy, E
Right arrow Articles by Brennan, P C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McCarthy, E
Right arrow Articles by Brennan, P C

Full Paper

Viewing conditions for diagnostic images in three major Dublin hospitals: a comparison with WHO and CEC recommendations

E McCarthy and P C Brennan, PhD

UCD School of Diagnostic Imaging, Herbert Avenue, Dublin 4, Ireland

Correspondence: P C Brennan, UCD School of Diagnostic Imaging, Herbert Avenue, Dublin 4, Ireland

Accurate interpretation of X-ray images is dependent on image viewing conditions. A recent study in Ireland demonstrated that even with the advent of digital departments the majority of images are still viewed using viewing boxes. This investigation aimed to measure average viewing box brightness, percentage uniformity and ambient light levels in radiology and radiographer viewing areas and wards within three major Dublin hospitals. The results were compared with published recommendations by the World Health Organization and Commission of the European Communities. Following analysis of more than 4650 measurements, it was shown that mean values for average viewing box brightness for all departments failed to achieve recommended levels. Only one third of areas met the most lenient guideline for percentage uniformity. Ambient lighting was shown to be unacceptable for ward areas. For all three parameters, radiology areas generally fared best, with wards gaining the poorest scores. Following a 3 min cleaning regimen of viewing boxes, the average brightness and percentage uniformity were improved in 100% and 80%, respectively, of viewing boxes, but average brightness values remained below recommended levels. The importance of comprehensive quality assurance programmes for viewing boxes has been highlighted so that visualization of images is not reduced to sub-optimal levels. The need for consistent and more informative recommendations has been emphasized.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Hand Surg Eur VolHome page
T. Reisler
An Alternative 'Viewing Box' for Hand X-rays
J Hand Surg Eur Vol., February 1, 2008; 33(1): 88 - 88.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
P. C. Brennan, M. McEntee, M. Evanoff, P. Phillips, W. T. O'Connor, and D. J. Manning
Ambient Lighting: Effect of Illumination on Soft-Copy Viewing of Radiographs of the Wrist
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2007; 188(2): W177 - W180.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2003 by the British Institute of Radiology.