Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Emergency Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Toomey RJ, Ryan JT, McEntee MF et al (2010) Diagnostic efficacy of handheld devices for emergency radiologic consultation. AJR 194:469–474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 24:184–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. ACR Technical Standard for Electronic Practice of Medical Imaging (2007) http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/guidelines/med_phys/Electronic_Practice.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2011

  4. Apple iPhone 3GS—size, weight, battery life and other specs (2011) http://www.apple.com/iphone/iphone-3gs/specs.html. Accessed 30 May 2011

  5. Apple—iPad—view the technical specifications for iPad (2011) http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/. Accessed 30 May 2011

  6. Jackson VP, Cushing T, Abujudeh HH et al (2009) RADPEER scoring white paper. J Am Coll Radiol 6:21–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 13:413–417

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 37:609–614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Samei E, Ranger NT, Delong DM (2008) A comparative contrast-detail study of five medical displays. Med Phys 35:1358–1364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 20:114–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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 237:905–910

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Press announcements > FDA clears first diagnostic radiology application for mobile devices (2011) http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm242295.htm. Accessed 30 May 2011

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael M. Maher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mc Laughlin, P., Neill, S.O., Fanning, N. et al. Emergency CT brain: preliminary interpretation with a tablet device: image quality and diagnostic performance of the Apple iPad. Emerg Radiol 19, 127–133 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-011-1011-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-011-1011-2

Keywords

Navigation