Current and future funding streams for paediatric postmortem imaging: European Society of Paediatric Radiology survey results.

BACKGROUND: Perinatal and childhood postmortem imaging has been accepted as a noninvasive alternative or adjunct to autopsy. However, the variation in funding models from institution to institution is a major factor prohibiting uniform provision of this service. OBJECTIVE: To describe current funding models employed in European and non-European institutions offering paediatric postmortem imaging services and to discuss the perceived barriers to future postmortem imaging service provision. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based 16-question survey was distributed to members of the European Society of Paediatric Radiology (ESPR) and ESPR postmortem imaging task force over a 6-month period (March-August 2021). Survey questions related to the radiologic and autopsy services being offered and how each was funded within the respondent's institute. RESULTS: Eighteen individual responses were received (13/18, 72.2% from Europe). Only one-third of the institutions (6/18, 33.3%) have fully funded postmortem imaging services, with the remainder receiving partial (6/18, 33.3%) or no funding (5/18, 27.8%). Funding (full or partial) was more commonly available for forensic work (13/18, 72%), particularly where this was nationally provided. Where funding was not provided, the imaging and reporting costs were absorbed by the institute. CONCLUSION: Increased access is required for the expansion of postmortem imaging into routine clinical use. This can only be achieved with formal funding on a national level, potentially through health care commissioning and acknowledgement by health care policy makers and pathology services of the value the service provides following the death of a fetus or child. Funding should include the costs involved in training, equipment, reporting and image acquisition

Comparison of Color LCD and Medical-grade Monochrome LCD Displays in Diagnostic Radiology

In diagnostic radiology, medical-grade monochrome displays are usually recommended because of their higher luminance. Standard color displays can be used as a less expensive alternative, but have a lower luminance. The aim of the present study was to compare image quality for these two types of displays. Images of a CDRAD contrast-detail phantom were read by four radiologists using a 2-megapixel (MP) color display (143 cd/m2 maximum luminance) as well as 2-MP (295 cd/m2) and 3-MP monochrome displays. Thirty lumbar spine radiographs were also read by four radiologists using the color and the 2-MP monochrome display in a visual grading analysis (VGA). Very small differences were found between the displays when reading the CDRAD images. The VGA scores were −0.28 for the color and −0.25 for the monochrome display (p = 0.24; NS). It thus seems possible to use color displays in diagnostic radiology provided that grayscale adjustment is used