HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) CME Test (opens in a new window) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Choi, J. R. Articles by Davis, R. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Choi, J. R. Articles by Davis, R. B. Related Collections Other Related Article

How to Create an effective Scientific Exhibit: Analysis of Award-winning Exhibits from the 1998 RSNA Meeting¹

¹ From the Departments of Diagnostic Radiology (J.R.C., J.B.K., M.P.R.) and General Internal Medicine (R.B.D.), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 1 Deaconess Rd, Boston, MA 02215. Recipient of a Certificate of Merit award for a scientific exhibit at the 1999 RSNA scientific assembly. Received February 4, 2000; revision requested March 15 and received April 18; accepted April 19, Address correspondence to J.B.K. (e-mail: jkruskal@caregroup.harvard.edu).

	Abstract

Top Abstract LEARNING OBJECTIVES FOR TEST... Introduction Types of Exhibits Analysis of 1998 RSNA... Advantages and Disadvantages of... Future Exhibit Possibilities Conclusions References

 
Although the most important component of an effective scientific exhibit is content, the way in which an exhibit is constructed can greatly influence its overall effectiveness. Choice of format should be determined by carefully analyzing the purpose of one's exhibit, expected audience, and data at hand, as well as type of meeting and funding. Depending on the type of data to be presented and available equipment and budget, the most appropriate style for a scientific exhibit may be a traditional mat board, computer-generated tiles or large-print backboard panel, traditional mat board with viewbox exhibit, matted transparency tiles with viewbox exhibit, or computer-generated large-film display. The authors analyzed 993 of 1,041 (95.4%) scientific exhibits on display at the 84th RSNA Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting and categorized each exhibit according to the following characteristics: display type and size, color scheme, display font size, and graphic styles. These characteristics were then correlated with scientific exhibit and design awards as well as invitations for submission to RadioGraphics. Chance of winning an award or being asked to publish the presentation in RadioGraphics was significantly increased for viewbox exhibits (compared with backboard panel exhibits) and for larger exhibits (compared with smaller exhibits).

Index Terms: Education • Radiology and radiologists

	LEARNING OBJECTIVES FOR TEST 4

Top Abstract LEARNING OBJECTIVES FOR TEST... Introduction Types of Exhibits Analysis of 1998 RSNA... Advantages and Disadvantages of... Future Exhibit Possibilities Conclusions References

 
After reading this article and taking the test, the reader will be able to:

• List the advantages and disadvantages of different exhibit styles and formats.
  
• Select the display styles, type sizes, and color schemes that work best with different types of exhibits.
  
• Identify the design elements associated with award-winning exhibits.
  

	Introduction

Top Abstract LEARNING OBJECTIVES FOR TEST... Introduction Types of Exhibits Analysis of 1998 RSNA... Advantages and Disadvantages of... Future Exhibit Possibilities Conclusions References

 
A scientific exhibit is an effective means of conveying information at a professional meeting. The advantages of this medium over that of an oral scientific presentation for reaching its audience include absence of time constraints, the ability to follow along at one's own pace, and increased flexibility in the way in which data are presented. Given the complexity of scientific data and figures displayed on a typical exhibit at scientific meetings and given the sheer number of exhibits at most meetings, it is paramount to present this information in the most concise and clear manner. In addition to content, exhibit style is probably the most important factor in creating an effective scientific exhibit.

To determine the characteristics of exhibit style that enhance a scientific exhibit, the authors analyzed the award-winning scientific exhibits from the 1998 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) according to six basic display formats. In this article, the authors describe the various types of exhibit styles, report their analysis of award-winning exhibits, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different exhibit styles.

	Types of Exhibits

Top Abstract LEARNING OBJECTIVES FOR TEST... Introduction Types of Exhibits Analysis of 1998 RSNA... Advantages and Disadvantages of... Future Exhibit Possibilities Conclusions References

 
There are many different ways to convey complex scientific data in an exhibit. Exhibits may be static, as in most posters (ie, backboard panel exhibits) and backlit displays (ie, viewbox exhibits), or interactive, as in many computerized displays. A static display, by its very nature, must be able to convey essential meaning quickly and clearly. Interactive exhibits, on the other hand, should be easy to explore and navigate, especially by operators who may be computer novices.

Choosing the most appropriate type of exhibit to convey one's data effectively is the first and most important step in creating an effective scientific exhibit. A good place to start planning an exhibit is to thoroughly review the pamphlet entitled Guidelines for Exhibits (1) sent to all exhibitors at the RSNA annual meeting, as well as an excellent editorial by Franken and Proto (2) on guidelines for a scientific exhibit in radiology. These two sources provide detailed guidelines on appropriate subject matter, proper use of artwork and design, type size, photography, lighting, and material. Guidelines for Exhibits also describes the types and dimensions of available exhibit space, as well as details about setup and removal of exhibits.

Backboard Panel Exhibits
Backboard panel exhibits are the most common type of scientific exhibits at the RSNA annual meeting (at RSNA '98, there were 877 backboard panel exhibits, constituting over 88% of 993 displays analyzed). These displays can be made by using traditional mounted photos with captions or computer-generated color pages as tiles, or they can be printed as a single large computer-generated printout. Sometimes, small physical objects such as catheters and anatomic models can be mounted on the backboard panel by using various tapes and adhesives.

The size of these displays can range from small (37 x 48 inch, single panel) to large (116 x 48 inch, three panel). The backboard panels are mounted on a felt backing (homosote is used at the RSNA) suitable for mounting the exhibit with Velcro, pins, tacks, or staples. At the RSNA meetings, illumination is provided by fluorescent lights above each panel (at other meetings, illumination is sometimes limited to overhead fluorescent lighting, which can result in shadows and inconsistent readability, depending on exhibit location).

Viewbox Exhibits
Viewbox exhibits are the next most common type of exhibits at the RSNA meeting. Their advantages over backboard panel exhibits include consistent and bright lighting. Because the exhibits are mounted on illuminated viewboxes, their range of contrast and brightness is markedly superior to what is usually achievable for backboard panel exhibits. Although viewbox displays have traditionally been used for conventional 14 x 17-inch radiographs or other diagnostic images with some captions, they are well suited for mounted films, large computer-generated backlit films, and matted transparencies.

At the RSNA meeting, viewbox exhibits range in size from a single-panel, 39.5 x 60-inch display to three-panel, 118.5 x 60-inch displays (mounted on three separate panels). Because it is not possible to attach the display to the viewboxes with staples or tacks, some sort of firm mounting such as mat boards or acrylic plastic sheets (eg, Plexiglas) is often needed (some backlit films can be taped to the viewboxes with heavy-duty tape).

Audiovisual Exhibits
Audiovisual exhibits include both video exhibits and slide projector setups, suitable for an audience of one or more viewers. They often include commentaries and soundtracks, which can be heard with headphones. These exhibits are especially well suited for topics in which video images are needed to convey the scientific information effectively. Some examples include studies involving motion, such as angiography, ultrasonography, barium studies, and intraoperative procedures, in which it is helpful to show videos to convey specific disease.

Although computer exhibits can also show videos, it is sometimes impractical or technically impossible to transfer video footage to the computer without special equipment. With improvements in data compression, storage media, and developments in Web-based technology, it is anticipated that many current audiovisual exhibits will ultimately be converted to the computerized format.

Computer Exhibits
Computer exhibits are the most interactive type of display. Varma et al (3) described in detail the process of creating such a display for a radiology exhibit. The contents of the scientific exhibit can be compiled in such a format that each viewer can explore the information according to his or her own need and time. Because of the varied nature of each individual's computer skills, a simple, easy-to-use, intuitive user interface is essential. Both a standardized user interface such as hypertext markup language (HTML)–based Web pages and interactive slide shows are popular. The computers can also be configured to obtain individualized feedback from each viewer (eg, time spent at each session, pages viewed, and specific queries) to further assess the effectiveness of the exhibit.

A standard computer exhibit at the RSNA meeting consists of a 1 x 2-m countertop over an enclosed base cabinet. Available Ethernet connections to the Web permit these exhibits to connect to additional contents anywhere in the world.

Freestanding Exhibits
Freestanding exhibits are the most flexible type of display. The content of each exhibit is completely up to the individual creating the display and is dependent in part on the amount of space and budget permitted for the exhibit. These displays can combine backboard panels, computer equipment, or audiovisual materials. A freestanding exhibit is especially well suited for subjects in which a combined multimedia presentation is needed to convey the scientific information effectively. Recent examples have included exhibits on computer-aided diagnosis, picture archiving and communication systems (PACS), and teleradiology.

	Analysis of 1998 RSNA Award-winning Exhibits

Top Abstract LEARNING OBJECTIVES FOR TEST... Introduction Types of Exhibits Analysis of 1998 RSNA... Advantages and Disadvantages of... Future Exhibit Possibilities Conclusions References

 
At the annual meeting of the RSNA, a plethora of impressive, innovative, and increasingly sophisticated exhibits are on display, depicting an ever-increasing volume of essential knowledge. Each year, those exhibits that best meet certain educational, artistic, and scientific criteria receive awards.

The authors decided to investigate what types of exhibits win awards, because radiologists designing and constructing exhibits should be aware of the qualities that are most likely to result in effective dissemination of scientific information, the overall goal of a scientific meeting. An artistically original or appealing exhibit may not necessarily convey scientific data as well as a plain and simple, clear, well-constructed exhibit, but it is likely to attract attention from viewers who might not otherwise study that exhibit. Of course, exhibits that break new ground in design, content, and clarity are likely to attract more attention and to be justifiably rewarded. However, given two otherwise comparable exhibits, do certain winning characteristics exist that can be categorized and compared? To find out, similar statistical analyses that are routinely performed on scientific data were applied to the scientific exhibits presented at the 1998 RSNA meeting.

Methods
Each scientific exhibit at the 1998 RSNA meeting was categorized as one of the following types: backboard panel exhibit, viewbox exhibit, audiovisual display, computerized display, and multimedia display. Backboard panel and viewbox exhibits were further analyzed by display subtypes (ie, traditional matted, tiles, or large computer-generated print for backboard panel exhibits and traditional matted, matted frames, or large computer-generated film for viewbox exhibits), background color, type color, headline size, and type size. All winners of scientific exhibit awards and design awards were further qualitatively analyzed for design, image size, and overall quality. Those exhibits receiving invitations for publication in RadioGraphics were also noted and compared with noninvitees.

A total of 993 of 1,041 (95.4%) backboard panel and viewbox exhibits were completely characterized in the above manner. audiovisual exhibits (n = 9), and multimedia exhibits (n = 9). Exhibits that were withdrawn (n = 1), not put up, or taken down early (n = 28) before the close of the exhibit hall were not included in any analysis.

The data were tabulated by using a spreadsheet program (Excel; Microsoft), and statistical calculations were performed by using a statistical analysis package (SAS/STAT version 6.12; SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify display characteristics associated with winning a scientific exhibit award or receiving an invitation for publication in RadioGraphics. Because of the small number of awards (n = 11) handed out for exhibit design, meaningful statistical difference could not be differentiated between excellence in design award winners and nonwinners. Independent variables tested included display type, means of display generation, background color, type color, display size, headline size, and type size. Odds ratios were then calculated for significant variables.

Results
The distribution of scientific exhibits at the 1998 RSNA meeting is shown in Table 1. Backboard panel exhibits constituted the ajority of the displays, with viewbox exhibits making up a distant second. Table 2 further subcategorizes the backboard panel and viewbox exhibits by exhibit size and display format. Table 3 summarizes the award winners by exhibit type and size. Awards for scientific exhibits included summa cum laude, magna cum laude, cum laude, and certificate of merit. Although an invitation to submit an exhibit to RadioGraphics is not an award per se, it was included in this analysis because various design elements are inevitably taken into consideration for such a selection.

sources is not an impediment to producing attractive, effective, and award-winning exhibits.

	Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Exhibit Styles

Top Abstract LEARNING OBJECTIVES FOR TEST... Introduction Types of Exhibits Analysis of 1998 RSNA... Advantages and Disadvantages of... Future Exhibit Possibilities Conclusions References

 
The various advantages and disadvantages as well as key points for different types of backboard panel exhibits and viewbox exhibits are summarized in Tables 5 and 6.

View larger version (71K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 1.   Example of a traditional matted backboard panel exhibit.

The cost of construction can vary widely, depending on the type of material and construction used. If the backboard panel exhibit is made directly by the author with simple construction paper and mat boards, one can be made for $100 or less. If the exhibit is contracted out to a professional audiovisual department to be made from raw data only, the charge to the author can mount to several thousand dollars.

Computer-generated Tile Backboard Panel Exhibits
Computer-generated tile backboard panel exhibits are best suited for conversion of slide-based presentations into a backboard panel exhibit (Fig 2). In their simplest form, these exhibits can be made from paper printouts of actual slides, which can then be mounted on a baseboard. The main advantage of computer-generated tiles is that they are relatively easy to make, print, and carry. Most tiles are made up of 8.5 x 11-inch color prints from either an ink-jet or dye sublimation color printer. When dye sublimation printers are used, the image quality is virtually indistinguishable from photographs. The tiles can be mounted on mat boards for additional support. Because these tiles are often symmetrically placed on the baseboard with necessary spacing, there tends to be a lot of wasted space with these displays compared with other types of backboard panel exhibits. However, this layout restriction also tends to make these displays well organized, succinct, and easy to read, which is advantageous when conveying scientific information.

View larger version (113K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 2.   Example of a computer-generated tile backboard panel exhibit.

Computer-generated Large-print Backboard Panel Exhibits
Computer-generated large-print backboard panel exhibits are now the most popular form at major meetings. They have become more popular with the decreasing cost and increasing availability of large-format ink-jet printers. As shown on Figure 3, they offer the most flexibility in design and layout. Improvements in software, computer, scanner, and printer technology have allowed many radiologists (including the authors) to act as their own graphic artists (4,5). The display can be designed with any number of page layout or illustration programs (eg, Publisher [Microsoft], Draw [Corel, Ontario, Canada], Illustrator [Adobe, San Jose, Calif] and printed by using a special wide-format ink-jet printer (300–1,200 dots per inch [dpi]). Many service bureaus will now also accept the computer files on a Zip disk (Iomega, Roy, Utah), compact disk, or even over a modem and deliver the printout by using express mail in 2–3 days.

View larger version (62K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 3.   Example of a computer-generated large-print backboard panel exhibit.

These exhibits are easy to transport, since the printouts can be rolled up and carried in a protective tube. They are light and easily attached to the exhibit panel by using tacks or Velcro tape.

Traditional Mat Board Viewbox Exhibits
Backlit mat board displays are made by cutting out appropriately sized holes on a large mat board. Small transparencies or films are then attached to the back of the mat board and transilluminated on the viewbox (Fig 4). Although the popularity of this type of display is diminishing because of the increased availability of large-format computer printers, these exhibits can still be effective and aesthetically pleasing if constructed correctly and with careful attention to detail. Because their layout is somewhat constrained by the mat board, these exhibits often have a simpler display. This exhibit format is best suited for types of pictorial essays in which the emphasis is placed on the quality of the images. Simple captions or key points should also be printed on film and transilluminated along with the images. Texts are best printed in a light color on a dark background to maintain high contrast for the adjacent images and to reduce scattered ambient light. However, a dark background color absorbs a large amount of heat and will rapidly cause deterioration of poorly constructed exhibits.

View larger version (60K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 4.   Example of a traditional mat board viewbox exhibit.

Matted Transparency Tile Viewbox Exhibits
Backlit matted transparent tile displays are similar to the traditional mat boards. Large transparencies about the size of 14 x 17-inch films are attached to stiff mat board frames. These transparencies are, in turn, hung on the viewboxes. They work especially well when original film images are incorporated into the exhibit (Fig 5). Captions can be printed on transparencies to be transilluminated along with the images or on paper and attached to mat board. When captions are printed on paper, they should be attached to an opaque background for best results (when paper is transilluminated, contrast between the text and the paper is decreased).

View larger version (65K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 5.   Example of a matted transparency tile viewbox exhibit.

Computer-generated Large-film Viewbox Exhibits
Computer-generated large-film displays are printed on a special film with the same large-format ink-jet printers used for large-print backboard panel exhibits. Like their backboard panel counterparts, computer-generated large-film viewbox exhibits are becoming more popular, due in part to improved accessibility and decreased cost of large-format printers. Because they are backlit, these exhibits should be printed with light-colored text on a dark background to reduce eye fatigue (Fig 6). They are attached to the viewbox by using an acrylic plastic backing and special railing, or they can be taped directly to the viewbox. Depending on the type of film, they are either printed on top of the film or on back of the film in mirror image. The advantage to the latter type is that the film acts as a protective surface. The disadvantage of this method comes from glare, especially if the film is not mounted perfectly flat.

View larger version (62K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 6.   Example of a computer-generated large-film exhibit.

	Future Exhibit Possibilities

Top Abstract LEARNING OBJECTIVES FOR TEST... Introduction Types of Exhibits Analysis of 1998 RSNA... Advantages and Disadvantages of... Future Exhibit Possibilities Conclusions References

 
Future exhibit designs will take their cue from advancements in both computer and video technologies. Recent advancements in development of high-definition displays—such as flat-panel, thin-plasma screen monitors (currently 42 inches in diagonal length and as thin as 4 inches) that can be hung on a wall—offer the possibility of reusable and interactive displays. When combined with small computers or fast network connections, these displays can be made to scroll continuously or interactively through an indefinite number of exhibit panels. Alternatively, they can also be configured to view any and all scientific exhibits at a given meeting from a single display panel (think of all the money one could save on shoes and exhibit space). The cost of such plasma screen displays (currently $7,000–$10,000) will continue to decrease, making them economical and attractive for more exhibitors in the long run compared with other forms of conventional exhibits.

Increased interactivity will also play a significant role in the future. Many exhibits already encourage active participation from the viewer by use of three-dimensional glasses, movable partitions, and survey questionnaires. Computer and touch-screen sensors will continue this development to the next plateau, which will blur the distinction between static and interactive presentations. Fully active scientific exhibits of the near future will permit full-motion videos, interactive choice of data, and text display (in any number of preconfigured tabular or chart forms in any degree of complexity), as well as the ability to both actively (by comments or bulletin board–type sections) and passively (by tracking how and what pages were viewed) leave feedback to the authors and other viewers.

	Conclusions

Top Abstract LEARNING OBJECTIVES FOR TEST... Introduction Types of Exhibits Analysis of 1998 RSNA... Advantages and Disadvantages of... Future Exhibit Possibilities Conclusions References

 
The most important component of an effective scientific exhibit is content (1,2). However, the way in which an exhibit is constructed can greatly influence the overall effectiveness of that exhibit (5). An effective exhibit requires careful planning, constructive use of available equipment and personnel, and hard work. Each type of exhibit has its advantages and disadvantages, and choice of format should depend not only on content, target audience, and type of meeting but also on available resources, including funding. By carefully analyzing the purpose of one's exhibit, expected audience, and data at hand, one can create an exhibit that is attractive, is effective, and may even receive recognition by awards. It is our sincere hope that this review is helpful in showing what can be possible given careful planning, dedication, and execution.

	Footnotes

 
See the commentary by Teplick following this article

	References

Top Abstract LEARNING OBJECTIVES FOR TEST... Introduction Types of Exhibits Analysis of 1998 RSNA... Advantages and Disadvantages of... Future Exhibit Possibilities Conclusions References

 

1. Radiological Society of North America. Guidelines for exhibits: 85th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 1999.
2. Franken EA, Proto AV. The scientific exhibit in radiology. RadioGraphics 1993; 13:3-4.[Medline]
3. Varma DG, Grossman J, Draper EJ, Durke VW, III. Computerized scientific exhibit in radiology: a valuable format for delivering scientific information. RadioGraphics 1994; 14:1127-1138.[Abstract]
4. Chew FS, Hefner ML. Computer-aided design and realization of scientific exhibits in radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987; 149:195-198.[Free Full Text]
5. Bach DB, Vellet AD, Karlik SJ, Downey DB, Levin MF, Munk PL. Producing picture-perfect posters. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 160:1303-1307.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. J. Weadock, F. J. Londy, J. Lin, and J. H. Ellis Improving Educational Computer Exhibits at Radiologic Meetings by Modifying Computer Environment: Results of an Observational Study RadioGraphics, November 1, 2002; 22(6): 1561 - 1565. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. C. Lentle, W. W. Olmsted, and T. C. McLoud Of Posters and Exhibits and Other Things Radiology, March 1, 2001; 218(3): 620 - 620. [Full Text]

				B. C. Lentle, W. W. Olmsted, and T. C. McLoud Of Posters and Exhibits and Other Things RadioGraphics, March 1, 2001; 21(2): 356 - 356. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) CME Test (opens in a new window) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Choi, J. R. Articles by Davis, R. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Choi, J. R. Articles by Davis, R. B. Related Collections Other Related Article