PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9456808

[Electronic data processing for nurses. 2. Electronic data processing improves economics and flexibility].

P Bergen
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

Computer TerminalsComputer User TrainingElectronic Data ProcessingErgonomicsHumansNursing StaffJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P Bergen. 1997. [Electronic data processing for nurses. 2. Electronic data processing improves economics and flexibility].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9456808/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2000

Active matrix liquid crystal displays for clinical imaging: comparison with cathode ray tube displays.

Fifteen large-area, flat-panel displays used for clinical image review were evaluated for image quality and compared with 30 comparably sized cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors. Measurements were of image display patterns by Video Electronic Standards Association (VESA) and a commercial product. Field measurements were made of: maximum and minimum luminance, ambient lighting, characteristic curve (gamma), point shape and size, high-contrast resolution, uniformity, and distortion. Assessments were made of pixel defects, latent image patterns, ghosting artifacts, and viewing angle luminance. Also, a questionnaire was generated for users of the flat-panel and CRT units. Seventeen respondents indicated no preference for either flat panel or CRT. Results show these flat panels to have higher luminance (mean, 177.7 cd/m2); larger number of just noticeable differences (JNDs; n = 555), higher gamma, comparable uniformity, and warm-up time. CRTs had less angle viewing dependence and far fewer artifacts (ghosting and latent images). Our questionnaire showed active matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCD) to be fully acceptable for clinical image viewing. Furthermore, the statistical results show that further testing for new AMLCDs of this type is unwarranted.

Computer Terminals↗
PubMed2000

Contrast-detail characteristic evaluations of several display devices.

The contrast-detail characteristic of a display system is a powerful tool for evaluating displayed image quality. It takes into account the physical properties of the display, the psychophysical aspects of the observer, and the viewing conditions. It is a more sensitive measurement of the displayed image quality than a simple Society of Motion Picture and Television (SMPTE) pattern. Yet, it is relatively simple to measure and requires no special equipment or analysis tools. In this presentation, the results of the evaluation of several cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors and a digital projector will be presented. Contrast-detail characteristics of these display devices were measured under various gamma and display settings. The results show excellent intraobserver and interobserver variance (<1 step on the grayscale). Extraneous light, such as room lighting, affects the contrast threshold more severely at low background levels more than at high background. Gamma settings on graphics adapters affect the shapes of the contrast-detail curve for all display types. Gamma settings of approximately 2.0 result in a better contrast threshold for both high and low background brightness. The results show complex differences in contrast-detail characteristics for different display types. The digital projector display not only has significantly worse performance than CRT monitors, but also is affected more by extraneous light. High-brightness monitors with optimal monitor and graphics adapter settings have better performance than color or low-brightness monitors. However, under some settings, the performance of high-brightness monitors is not always better at all object sizes and background levels.

Computer Terminals↗
PubMed2000

Comparison of a new video-optical intubation stylet versus the conventional malleable stylet in simulated difficult tracheal intubation.

Handling and efficacy of a new video-optical intubation stylet were assessed in a simulated difficult tracheal intubation setting and compared with a conventional malleable stylet. Forty-five anaesthetists performed 10 tracheal intubations using both techniques. Laryngoscopy was performed by the observer, who created a grade 3 view according the classification by Cormack and Lehane. The time taken to place the tracheal tube and the final tracheal tube positions were documented. Mean (SD) intubation time for the video-optical stylet was 20.4 (7.7) s and for the malleable stylet 10.2 (3.3) s (p<0.01). With the video-optical stylet the trachea was correctly intubated in all 225 attempts; with the malleable stylet 44 (19.6%) oesophageal and 44 (19.6%) endobronchial intubations occurred (p<0.01). The video-optical intubation stylet enabled us to recognise inappropriate tracheal tube positions and to correct them immediately. This equipment can be considered a reliable and effective tool for management of the difficult airway.

Computer Terminals↗