OBJECTIVE: To review the published evidence and to determine if radiological diagnostic accuracy is compromised when images are displayed on a tablet computer and thereby inform practice on using tablet computers for radiological interpretation by on-call radiologists. METHODS: We searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases for studies on the diagnostic accuracy or diagnostic reliability of images interpreted on tablet computers. Studies were screened for inclusion based on pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias using Quality Appraisal of Diagnostic Reliability Studies or the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Treatment of studies was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. 10 of these studies tested the Apple iPad(®) (Apple, Cupertino, CA). The included studies reported high sensitivity (84-98%), specificity (74-100%) and accuracy rates (98-100%) for radiological diagnosis. There was no statistically significant difference in accuracy between a tablet computer and a digital imaging and communication in medicine-calibrated control display. There was a near complete consensus from authors on the non-inferiority of diagnostic accuracy of images displayed on a tablet computer. All of the included studies were judged to be at risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the diagnostic accuracy of radiological interpretation is not compromised by using a tablet computer. This result is only relevant to the Apple iPad and to the modalities of CT, MRI and plain radiography. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The iPad may be appropriate for an on-call radiologist to use for radiological interpretation.
OBJECTIVE: To review the published evidence and to determine if radiological diagnostic accuracy is compromised when images are displayed on a tablet computer and thereby inform practice on using tablet computers for radiological interpretation by on-call radiologists. METHODS: We searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases for studies on the diagnostic accuracy or diagnostic reliability of images interpreted on tablet computers. Studies were screened for inclusion based on pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias using Quality Appraisal of Diagnostic Reliability Studies or the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Treatment of studies was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. 10 of these studies tested the Apple iPad(®) (Apple, Cupertino, CA). The included studies reported high sensitivity (84-98%), specificity (74-100%) and accuracy rates (98-100%) for radiological diagnosis. There was no statistically significant difference in accuracy between a tablet computer and a digital imaging and communication in medicine-calibrated control display. There was a near complete consensus from authors on the non-inferiority of diagnostic accuracy of images displayed on a tablet computer. All of the included studies were judged to be at risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the diagnostic accuracy of radiological interpretation is not compromised by using a tablet computer. This result is only relevant to the Apple iPad and to the modalities of CT, MRI and plain radiography. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The iPad may be appropriate for an on-call radiologist to use for radiological interpretation.
Authors: Ehsan Samei; Aldo Badano; Dev Chakraborty; Ken Compton; Craig Cornelius; Kevin Corrigan; Michael J Flynn; Bradley Hemminger; Nick Hangiandreou; Jeffrey Johnson; Donna M Moxley-Stevens; William Pavlicek; Hans Roehrig; Lois Rutz; Jeffrey Shepard; Robert A Uzenoff; Jihong Wang; Charles E Willis Journal: Med Phys Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sven Y Vetter; Svenja Schüler; Matthes Hackbusch; Michael Müller; Benedict Swartman; Marc Schnetzke; Paul Alfred Grützner; Jochen Franke Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 4.056