Purpose: To test the effectiveness of the Barco recommended QA on QAWeb Agent and QAWeb Enterprise and compare to the TG-270 recommend QA for diagnostic display monitors as well as creating our own standards and testing to see if Barco’s standards complied with the TG270 QA reports.
Methods: Created own calculations through excel that measured DICOM GSDF, Uniformity, Color Coordinates, and luminance range. Used PACS Display software for color tracking. Used Barco QAWeb Agent and QAWeb Enterprise QA functions for uniformity, color coordinates, DICOM GSDF, and luminance range. Used external sensors, such as Barco’s LCD sensor and iMeter Sensor throughout most testing for consistency and tested in low light levels in reading rooms.
Results: For all Barco MDCC 6430 monitors, each one failed the color coordinate location for both our calculations and QAWeb Enterprise. Enterprise lacked the color tracking needed to determine if monitors pass or fail that result. All other calculations tested lined up with our hand built documents except in some low light results in the DICOM GSDF, mainly the errors would be off by as much as 5%, but after low light levels, almost all percentages were within 2%. Older monitors showed drop off in in color coordinates as well as higher percentage errors on the DICOM GSDF.
Conclusion: QAWeb Enterprise is a good solution to being able to use many of the recommend tests on a monitor and have them set to internal or external sensors as well as changing the frequency and tolerances. It lacks in the color tracking of the monitor to see if it is in poor or good quality, besides that, the ease of use is low and ultimately super effective for building out a QC program that follows the TG270 report.
Funding Support, Disclosures, and Conflict of Interest: Rush University Medical Center
Quality Assurance, Quality Control, Monitor Unit Calculations
Not Applicable / None Entered.