OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to determine the acceptability of the iPad 3 as a display option for American Board of Radiology (ABR) examinations. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A set of 20 cases for each of nine specialties examined by the ABR was prepared. Each comprised between one and seven images and case information and had been used in previous ABR Initial Certification examinations. Examining radiologists (n = 119) at the ABR oral Initial Certification examinations reviewed sets from one or more specialties on both a 2 MP LED monitor and on the iPad 3 and rated the visibility of the salient image features for each case. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed to compare ratings. In addition, a thematic analysis of participants' opinions was undertaken. RESULTS: When all specialties were pooled, the iPad 3 ratings were significantly higher than the monitor ratings (p = 0.0217). The breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and nuclear medicine specialties also returned significantly higher ratings for the visibility of relevant image features for the iPad 3. Monitor ratings were significantly higher for the vascular and interventional specialty, although no images were rated unacceptably poor on the iPad in this specialty. CONCLUSION: The relevant image features were rated more visible on the iPad 3 than on the monitors overall. The iPad 3 was well accepted by a large majority of examiners and can be considered adequate for image display for examination in most or all specialties.
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to determine the acceptability of the iPad 3 as a display option for American Board of Radiology (ABR) examinations. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A set of 20 cases for each of nine specialties examined by the ABR was prepared. Each comprised between one and seven images and case information and had been used in previous ABR Initial Certification examinations. Examining radiologists (n = 119) at the ABR oral Initial Certification examinations reviewed sets from one or more specialties on both a 2 MP LED monitor and on the iPad 3 and rated the visibility of the salient image features for each case. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed to compare ratings. In addition, a thematic analysis of participants' opinions was undertaken. RESULTS: When all specialties were pooled, the iPad 3 ratings were significantly higher than the monitor ratings (p = 0.0217). The breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and nuclear medicine specialties also returned significantly higher ratings for the visibility of relevant image features for the iPad 3. Monitor ratings were significantly higher for the vascular and interventional specialty, although no images were rated unacceptably poor on the iPad in this specialty. CONCLUSION: The relevant image features were rated more visible on the iPad 3 than on the monitors overall. The iPad 3 was well accepted by a large majority of examiners and can be considered adequate for image display for examination in most or all specialties.
Entities:
Keywords:
American Board of Radiology (ABR); examination; iPad; image display; tablet computer
Authors: Bradley Spieler; Catherine Batte; Dane Mackey; Caitlin Henry; Raman Danrad; Carl Sabottke; Claude Pirtle; Jason Mussell; Eric Wallace Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2020-07-30