放射软拷贝观看的环境光水平:多地点比较

Patrick C. Brennan PhD , Priscilla M. Murphy BSc
{"title":"放射软拷贝观看的环境光水平:多地点比较","authors":"Patrick C. Brennan PhD ,&nbsp;Priscilla M. Murphy BSc","doi":"10.1016/S0820-5930(09)60229-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The purpose of the study was to investigate ambient light levels in three environments where radiological images are viewed, including radiologist reporting areas, radiographer viewing stations, and radiographer wards to compare recorded levels with recommendations and consider possible causal agents for excessive levels. Ambient lighting at 30 cm and 100 cm from the display device was measured with a calibrated Nuclear Associates 07-621 photometer (Hicksville, New York). Two hospitals participated in this investigation and all monitors (n=89) used within each hospital for the viewing/reporting of radiological images were included. Values obtained were compared with recommended levels and comparisons were made between hospitals for the same viewing area using the Mann Whitney-U non-parametric statistical test. Of the monitors studied, 74 percent adhered to the World Health Organization recommended maximum of 100 lux at 30 cm from the image, while compliance fell to 45 percent when values recorded at 100 cm were compared to the European Commission guideline maximum of 50 lux. Most of the monitors with excessive ambient lighting were located in ward areas, with one hospital demonstrating 7 percent compliance in this environment. Statistical differences were shown between hospitals for radiology (p&lt;0.0001) and ward (p&lt;0.01) areas. It is clear from the data provided that planning is required in the positioning of display devices with careful consideration of artificial and natural lighting if diagnostic efficacy is not to be compromised. Ambient light measurement techniques require standardization.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":79737,"journal":{"name":"The Canadian journal of medical radiation technology","volume":"38 1","pages":"Pages 9-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0820-5930(09)60229-2","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ambient Light Levels for Radiological Soft Copy Viewing: A Multi-Site Comparison\",\"authors\":\"Patrick C. Brennan PhD ,&nbsp;Priscilla M. Murphy BSc\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S0820-5930(09)60229-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The purpose of the study was to investigate ambient light levels in three environments where radiological images are viewed, including radiologist reporting areas, radiographer viewing stations, and radiographer wards to compare recorded levels with recommendations and consider possible causal agents for excessive levels. Ambient lighting at 30 cm and 100 cm from the display device was measured with a calibrated Nuclear Associates 07-621 photometer (Hicksville, New York). Two hospitals participated in this investigation and all monitors (n=89) used within each hospital for the viewing/reporting of radiological images were included. Values obtained were compared with recommended levels and comparisons were made between hospitals for the same viewing area using the Mann Whitney-U non-parametric statistical test. Of the monitors studied, 74 percent adhered to the World Health Organization recommended maximum of 100 lux at 30 cm from the image, while compliance fell to 45 percent when values recorded at 100 cm were compared to the European Commission guideline maximum of 50 lux. Most of the monitors with excessive ambient lighting were located in ward areas, with one hospital demonstrating 7 percent compliance in this environment. Statistical differences were shown between hospitals for radiology (p&lt;0.0001) and ward (p&lt;0.01) areas. It is clear from the data provided that planning is required in the positioning of display devices with careful consideration of artificial and natural lighting if diagnostic efficacy is not to be compromised. Ambient light measurement techniques require standardization.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79737,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Canadian journal of medical radiation technology\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 9-13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0820-5930(09)60229-2\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Canadian journal of medical radiation technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0820593009602292\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Canadian journal of medical radiation technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0820593009602292","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本研究的目的是调查三种观看放射图像的环境光水平,包括放射科医生报告区、放射科医生观察站和放射科医生病房,将记录的光水平与推荐的光水平进行比较,并考虑光水平过高的可能原因。使用校准过的Nuclear Associates 07-621光度计(Hicksville, New York)测量距离显示装置30 cm和100 cm处的环境光照。两家医院参与了这项调查,包括每家医院内用于观察/报告放射图像的所有监视器(n=89)。将获得的数值与推荐水平进行比较,并使用Mann Whitney-U非参数统计检验在同一观察区域的医院之间进行比较。在所研究的监视器中,74%的监视器遵循世界卫生组织建议的距离图像30厘米处的最大值100勒克斯,而与欧洲委员会指导的最大值50勒克斯相比,在100厘米处记录的值遵守率下降到45%。大多数环境照明过度的监测器都位于病房区域,有一家医院在这种环境下达到了7%的要求。放射科医院(p<0.0001)与病区(p<0.01)之间存在统计学差异。从所提供的数据中可以清楚地看出,如果不损害诊断效果,则需要在仔细考虑人工和自然光的情况下规划显示设备的定位。环境光测量技术需要标准化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ambient Light Levels for Radiological Soft Copy Viewing: A Multi-Site Comparison

The purpose of the study was to investigate ambient light levels in three environments where radiological images are viewed, including radiologist reporting areas, radiographer viewing stations, and radiographer wards to compare recorded levels with recommendations and consider possible causal agents for excessive levels. Ambient lighting at 30 cm and 100 cm from the display device was measured with a calibrated Nuclear Associates 07-621 photometer (Hicksville, New York). Two hospitals participated in this investigation and all monitors (n=89) used within each hospital for the viewing/reporting of radiological images were included. Values obtained were compared with recommended levels and comparisons were made between hospitals for the same viewing area using the Mann Whitney-U non-parametric statistical test. Of the monitors studied, 74 percent adhered to the World Health Organization recommended maximum of 100 lux at 30 cm from the image, while compliance fell to 45 percent when values recorded at 100 cm were compared to the European Commission guideline maximum of 50 lux. Most of the monitors with excessive ambient lighting were located in ward areas, with one hospital demonstrating 7 percent compliance in this environment. Statistical differences were shown between hospitals for radiology (p<0.0001) and ward (p<0.01) areas. It is clear from the data provided that planning is required in the positioning of display devices with careful consideration of artificial and natural lighting if diagnostic efficacy is not to be compromised. Ambient light measurement techniques require standardization.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Advance Care Planning: What's All the Talk About? Advance Directives in Canada: An Ethical Imperative in a Legal Morass New and Uncharted Territory: Integrative Medicine in the Medical Radiation Sciences Working Alone in MRI? 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)—Is it Ready for Prime Time Clinical Applications?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1