Literature DB >> 22173819

Emergency CT brain: preliminary interpretation with a tablet device: image quality and diagnostic performance of the Apple iPad.

Patrick Mc Laughlin1, Siobhan O Neill, Noel Fanning, Anne Marie Mc Garrigle, Owen J O Connor, Gerry Wyse, Michael M Maher.   

Abstract

Tablet devices have recently been used in radiological image interpretation because they have a display resolution comparable to desktop LCD monitors. We identified a need to examine tablet display performance prior to their use in preliminary interpretation of radiological images. We compared the spatial and contrast resolution of a commercially available tablet display with a diagnostic grade 2 megapixel monochrome LCD using a contrast detail phantom. We also recorded reporting discrepancies, using the ACR RADPEER system, between preliminary interpretation of 100 emergency CT brain examinations on the tablet display and formal review on a diagnostic LCD. The iPad display performed inferiorly to the diagnostic monochrome display without the ability to zoom. When the software zoom function was enabled on the tablet device, comparable contrast detail phantom scores of 163 vs 165 points were achieved. No reporting discrepancies were encountered during the interpretation of 43 normal examinations and five cases of acute intracranial hemorrhage. There were seven RADPEER2 (understandable) misses when using the iPad display and 12 with the diagnostic LCD. Use of software zoom in the tablet device improved its contrast detail phantom score. The tablet allowed satisfactory identification of acute CT brain findings, but additional research will be required to examine the cause of "understandable" reporting discrepancies that occur when using tablet devices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22173819     DOI: 10.1007/s10140-011-1011-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Radiol        ISSN: 1070-3004


  9 in total

1.  Resolution requirements for monitor viewing of digital flat-panel detector radiographs: a contrast detail analysis.

Authors:  Siegfried Peer; Salvatore M Giacomuzzi; Regina Peer; Eva Gassner; Iris Steingruber; Werner Jaschke
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-06-14       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Flat panel digital radiography compared with storage phosphor computed radiography: assessment of dose versus image quality in phantom studies.

Authors:  Frank Fischbach; Jens Ricke; Torsten Freund; Michael Werk; Birgit Spors; Clemens Baumann; Marcie J Pech; Roland Felix
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 6.016

3.  Threshold perception performance with computed and screen-film radiography: implications for chest radiography.

Authors:  J T Dobbins; J J Rice; C A Beam; C E Ravin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Initial experience with a handheld device digital imaging and communications in medicine viewer: OsiriX mobile on the iPhone.

Authors:  Asim F Choudhri; Martin G Radvany
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Radiation dose reduction without degradation of low-contrast detectability at abdominal multisection CT with a low-tube voltage technique: phantom study.

Authors:  Yoshinori Funama; Kazuo Awai; Yoshiharu Nakayama; Kiyotaka Kakei; Nozomu Nagasue; Masamichi Shimamura; Natsuko Sato; Shamima Sultana; Shoji Morishita; Yasuyuki Yamashita
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Comparison of color LCD and medical-grade monochrome LCD displays in diagnostic radiology.

Authors:  Håkan Geijer; Mats Geijer; Lillemor Forsberg; Susanne Kheddache; Patrik Sund
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 7.  RADPEER scoring white paper.

Authors:  Valerie P Jackson; Trudie Cushing; Hani H Abujudeh; James P Borgstede; Kenneth W Chin; Charles K Grimes; David B Larson; Paul A Larson; Robert S Pyatt; William T Thorwarth
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 5.532

8.  A comparative contrast-detail study of five medical displays.

Authors:  Ehsan Samei; Nicole T Ranger; David M Delong
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Diagnostic efficacy of handheld devices for emergency radiologic consultation.

Authors:  Rachel J Toomey; John T Ryan; Mark F McEntee; Michael G Evanoff; Dev P Chakraborty; Jonathan P McNulty; David J Manning; Edel M Thomas; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.959

  9 in total
  27 in total

1.  Effect of display type, DICOM calibration and room illuminance in bitewing radiographs.

Authors:  Soili Kallio-Pulkkinen; Sisko Huumonen; Marianne Haapea; Esa Liukkonen; Annina Sipola; Osmo Tervonen; Miika T Nieminen
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2015-08-03       Impact factor: 2.419

2.  iPad-based patient briefing for radiological examinations-a clinical trial.

Authors:  Philipp M Schlechtweg; Matthias Hammon; David Giese; Christian Heberlein; Michael Uder; Siegfried A Schwab
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Tablet computer use by medical students in the United States.

Authors:  Robert L Robinson; Martha S Burk
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2013-07-07       Impact factor: 4.460

4.  The use of lower resolution viewing devices for mammographic interpretation: implications for education and training.

Authors:  Yan Chen; Jonathan J James; Anne E Turnbull; Alastair G Gale
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Radiological interpretation of images displayed on tablet computers: a systematic review.

Authors:  L J Caffery; N R Armfield; A C Smith
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Letter to the editor re: the iPad tablet computer for mobile on-call radiology diagnosis? Auditing discrepancy in CT and MRI reporting.

Authors:  Joon Bum Park; Bo Seung Kang
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.056

7.  Mobile tablet use among academic physicians and trainees.

Authors:  Joseph Sclafani; Timothy F Tirrell; Orrin I Franko
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2013-01-09       Impact factor: 4.460

8.  Evaluation of Coronary Artery Disease and Coronary Anomalies with a Handheld Smartphone.

Authors:  Cheng Ting Lin; Stefan Loy Zimmerman; Linda C Chu; John Eng; Elliot K Fishman
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.056

9.  Can the documented patient briefing be carried out with an iPad app?

Authors:  Philipp Martin Schlechtweg; Matthias Hammon; Christian Heberlein; David Giese; Michael Uder; Siegfried Alexander Schwab
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.056

10.  Diagnosis and treatment planning of acute aortic emergencies using a handheld DICOM viewer.

Authors:  Asim F Choudhri; Patrick T Norton; Thomas M Carr; James R Stone; Klaus D Hagspiel; Michael D Dake
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2013-03-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.