| Title |
The iPad Tablet Computer for Mobile On-Call Radiology Diagnosis? Auditing Discrepancy in CT and MRI Reporting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Digital Imaging, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10278-012-9485-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sindhu John, Angeline C. C. Poh, Tchoyoson C. C. Lim, Elizabeth H. Y. Chan, Le Roy Chong |
| Abstract |
Tablet computers such as the iPad, which have a large format, improved graphic display resolution and a touch screen interface, may have an advantage compared to existing mobile devices such as smartphones and laptops for viewing radiological images. We assessed their potential for emergency radiology teleconsultation by reviewing multi-image CT and MRI studies on iPad tablet computers compared to Picture Archival and Communication Systems (PACS) workstations. Annonymised DICOM images of 79 CT and nine MRI studies comprising a range of common on-call conditions, reported on full-featured diagnostic PACS workstation by one Reporting Radiologist, were transferred from PACS to three iPad tablet computers running OsiriX HD v 2.02 DICOM software and viewed independently by three reviewing radiologists. Structured documentation was made of major findings (primary diagnosis or other clinically important findings), minor findings (incidental findings), and user feedback. Two hundred and sixty four readings (88 studies read by three reviewing radiologists) were compared, with 3.4 % (nine of 264) major discrepancies and 5.6 % (15 of 264) minor discrepancies. All reviewing radiologists reported favorable user experience but noted issues with software stability and limitations of image manipulation tools. Our results suggest that emergency conditions commonly encountered on CT and MRI can be diagnosed using tablet computers with good agreement with dedicated PACS workstations. Shortcomings in software and application design should be addressed if the potential of tablet computers for mobile teleradiology is to be fully realized. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 25% |
| Egypt | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 113 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 18% |
| Other | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 12% |
| Researcher | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 23 | 19% |
| Unknown | 24 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 31% |
| Computer Science | 17 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Engineering | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 18 | 15% |
| Unknown | 32 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 02 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,985,258
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#48
of 1,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,757
of 163,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,044 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 163,546 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them