BACKGROUND: Image review on computer-based workstations has made film-based review outdated. Despite advances in technology, the lack of portability of digital workstations creates an inherent disadvantage. As such, we sought to determine if the quality of image review on a handheld device is adequate for routine clinical use. METHODS: Six CT/CTA cases and six MR/MRA cases were independently reviewed by three neuroradiologists in varying environments: high and low ambient light using a handheld device and on a traditional imaging workstation in ideal conditions. On first review (using a handheld device in high ambient light), a preliminary diagnosis for each case was made. Upon changes in review conditions, neuroradiologists were asked if any additional features were seen that changed their initial diagnoses. Reviewers were also asked to comment on overall clinical quality and if the handheld display was of acceptable quality for image review. RESULTS: After the initial CT review in high ambient light, additional findings were reported in 2 of 18 instances on subsequent reviews. Similarly, additional findings were identified in 4 of 18 instances after the initial MR review in high ambient lighting. Only one of these six additional findings contributed to the diagnosis made on the initial preliminary review. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a handheld device for image review is of adequate diagnostic quality based on image contrast, sharpness of structures, visible artefacts and overall display quality. Although reviewers were comfortable with using this technology, a handheld device with a larger screen may be diagnostically superior.
BACKGROUND: Image review on computer-based workstations has made film-based review outdated. Despite advances in technology, the lack of portability of digital workstations creates an inherent disadvantage. As such, we sought to determine if the quality of image review on a handheld device is adequate for routine clinical use. METHODS: Six CT/CTA cases and six MR/MRA cases were independently reviewed by three neuroradiologists in varying environments: high and low ambient light using a handheld device and on a traditional imaging workstation in ideal conditions. On first review (using a handheld device in high ambient light), a preliminary diagnosis for each case was made. Upon changes in review conditions, neuroradiologists were asked if any additional features were seen that changed their initial diagnoses. Reviewers were also asked to comment on overall clinical quality and if the handheld display was of acceptable quality for image review. RESULTS: After the initial CT review in high ambient light, additional findings were reported in 2 of 18 instances on subsequent reviews. Similarly, additional findings were identified in 4 of 18 instances after the initial MR review in high ambient lighting. Only one of these six additional findings contributed to the diagnosis made on the initial preliminary review. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a handheld device for image review is of adequate diagnostic quality based on image contrast, sharpness of structures, visible artefacts and overall display quality. Although reviewers were comfortable with using this technology, a handheld device with a larger screen may be diagnostically superior.
Entities:
Keywords:
DICOM; PACS; PDA radiology; handheld; iPad; iPhone; mobile phone