Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Emergency Radiology 2/2012

01-04-2012 | Original Article

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

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

Published in: Emergency Radiology | Issue 2/2012

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Toomey RJ, Ryan JT, McEntee MF et al (2010) Diagnostic efficacy of handheld devices for emergency radiologic consultation. AJR 194:469–474PubMedCrossRef Toomey RJ, Ryan JT, McEntee MF et al (2010) Diagnostic efficacy of handheld devices for emergency radiologic consultation. AJR 194:469–474PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Choudhri AF, Radvany MG (2011) Initial experience with a handheld device digital imaging and communications in medicine viewer: OsiriX mobile on the iPhone. J Digit Imaging 24:184–189PubMedCrossRef Choudhri AF, Radvany MG (2011) Initial experience with a handheld device digital imaging and communications in medicine viewer: OsiriX mobile on the iPhone. J Digit Imaging 24:184–189PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Jackson VP, Cushing T, Abujudeh HH et al (2009) RADPEER scoring white paper. J Am Coll Radiol 6:21–25PubMedCrossRef Jackson VP, Cushing T, Abujudeh HH et al (2009) RADPEER scoring white paper. J Am Coll Radiol 6:21–25PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Peer S, Giacomuzzi SM, Peer R, Gassner E, Steingruber I, Jaschke W (2003) Resolution requirements for monitor viewing of digital flat-panel detector radiographs: a contrast detail analysis. Eur Radiol 13:413–417PubMed Peer S, Giacomuzzi SM, Peer R, Gassner E, Steingruber I, Jaschke W (2003) Resolution requirements for monitor viewing of digital flat-panel detector radiographs: a contrast detail analysis. Eur Radiol 13:413–417PubMed
8.
go back to reference Fischbach F, Ricke J, Freund T et al (2002) Flat panel digital radiography compared with storage phosphor computed radiography: assessment of dose versus image quality in phantom studies. Invest Radiol 37:609–614PubMedCrossRef Fischbach F, Ricke J, Freund T et al (2002) Flat panel digital radiography compared with storage phosphor computed radiography: assessment of dose versus image quality in phantom studies. Invest Radiol 37:609–614PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Samei E, Ranger NT, Delong DM (2008) A comparative contrast-detail study of five medical displays. Med Phys 35:1358–1364PubMedCrossRef Samei E, Ranger NT, Delong DM (2008) A comparative contrast-detail study of five medical displays. Med Phys 35:1358–1364PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Geijer H, Geijer M, Forsberg L, Kheddache S, Sund P (2007) Comparison of color LCD and medical-grade monochrome LCD displays in diagnostic radiology. J Digit Imaging 20:114–121PubMedCrossRef Geijer H, Geijer M, Forsberg L, Kheddache S, Sund P (2007) Comparison of color LCD and medical-grade monochrome LCD displays in diagnostic radiology. J Digit Imaging 20:114–121PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Dobbins JT, Rice JJ, Beam CA, Ravin CE (1993) Threshold perception performance with computed and screen film radiography: implications for chest radiography. Radiology 183:179–187 Dobbins JT, Rice JJ, Beam CA, Ravin CE (1993) Threshold perception performance with computed and screen film radiography: implications for chest radiography. Radiology 183:179–187
12.
go back to reference Funama Y, Awai K, Nakayama Y et al (2005) Radiation dose reduction without degradation of low-contrast detectability at abdominal multisection CT with a low-tube voltage technique: phantom study. Radiology 237:905–910PubMedCrossRef Funama Y, Awai K, Nakayama Y et al (2005) Radiation dose reduction without degradation of low-contrast detectability at abdominal multisection CT with a low-tube voltage technique: phantom study. Radiology 237:905–910PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Emergency CT brain: preliminary interpretation with a tablet device: image quality and diagnostic performance of the Apple iPad
Authors
Patrick Mc Laughlin
Siobhan O. Neill
Noel Fanning
Anne Marie Mc Garrigle
Owen J. O. Connor
Gerry Wyse
Michael M. Maher
Publication date
01-04-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Emergency Radiology / Issue 2/2012
Print ISSN: 1070-3004
Electronic ISSN: 1438-1435
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-011-1011-2

Other articles of this Issue 2/2012

Emergency Radiology 2/2012 Go to the issue