↓ Skip to main content

Radiological interpretation of images displayed on tablet computers: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Radiology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Radiological interpretation of images displayed on tablet computers: a systematic review
Published in
British Journal of Radiology, April 2015
DOI 10.1259/bjr.20150191
Pubmed ID
Authors

L J Caffery, N R Armfield, A C Smith

Abstract

To review the published evidence 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. 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 predetermined 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). Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Ten of these studies tested the Apple iPad. 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 DICOM 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. Our findings suggest 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Master 6 10%
Other 5 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Other 14 23%
Unknown 18 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 25 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2016.
All research outputs
#7,357,897
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Radiology
#701
of 3,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,963
of 279,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Radiology
#3
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,297 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,644 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.