Flexible Image Evaluation. iPad versus Secondary-class Monitors for Review of MR Spinal Emergency Cases, A Comparative Study.

Academic Radiology

Volumn 19, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 1023-1028

  McNulty, Jonathan P ^a   Ryan, John T ^b   Evanoff, Michael G ^c   Rainford, Louise A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c American Board of Radiology   (United States)

Author keywords

Display devices; Magnetic resonance imaging: spine; Observer performance; Receiver operating characteristic (ROC); Spinal emergencies

Indexed keywords

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CAUDA EQUINA SYNDROME; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; EMERGENCY PATIENT; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; IPAD; LCD MONITOR; MEDICAL DEVICE; MONITOR; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPINAL CORD COMPRESSION; SPINAL CORD EDEMA; SPINAL CORD HEMORRHAGE; SPINAL CORD INJURY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COMPUTERS, HANDHELD; DATA DISPLAY; EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPINAL CORD INJURIES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84863500401     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: 18784046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2012.02.021     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. McLeod T.G., Ebbert J.O., Lymp J.F. Survey assessment of personal digital assistant use among trainees and attending physicians. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003, 10:605-607.
2. Boonn W.W., Flanders A.E. Informatics in radiology (infoRAD): survey of personal digital assistant use in radiology. RadioGraphics 2005, 25:537-541.
3. Avitzur O. How neurologists are using the newest tablets-in and out of the clinic. Neurology Today 2010, 10:22-24.
4. Berger E. The iPad: gadget or medical Godsend?. Ann Emerg Med 2010, 56:21-22A.
5. Shah K., Siegel E., Patel A. Radiographic applications of the Apple iPad: is portable, multitouch radiology in our future?. Proc Radiol Soc N Am 2010, SSC08-03.
6. Weiss F., Jeudy J., Sahin A., et al. TB or not TB? Answering an age old question using a modern device: the iPad. Proc Radiol Soc N Am 2010, SSC08-07.
7. Flanders A.E., Wiggins R.H., Gozum M.E. Handheld computers in radiology. RadioGraphics 2003, 23:1035-1047.
8. McEntee M.F., Toomey R.J. Handheld devices for emergency radiologic consultation. Hosp Imaging Radiol Eur 2010, 5. Available at:. http://www.hospitalradiologyeurope.com/default.asp%3Ftitle%3DHandheld%255Fdevices%255Ffor%255Femergency%255Fradiological%255Fconsultation&page%3Darticle.display&article.id%3D25033.
9. Raman B., Raman R., Raman l, et al. Radiology on handheld devices: image display, manipulation, and PACS integration issues. Radiographics 2004, 24:299-310.
10. Toomey R.J., Ryan J.T., McEntee M.F., et al. Diagnostic efficacy of handheld devices for emergency radiologic consultation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010, 194:469-474.
11. Choudhri A.F., Radvany M.G. Initial experience with a handheld device digital imaging and communications in medicine viewer: OsiriX mobile on the iPhone. J Digital Imaging 2011, 24:184-189.
12. Choudhri A., Carr T., Ho C., et al. Handheld device review of abdominal CT for the evaluation of acute appendicitis. Proc Radiol Soc N Am 2009, SSE09-03.
13. Rosenberg M.S., Bullard T., Ladde J., et al. Can digital photographs of CT images obtained and transferred by cell phone be used to predict the need to transfer to tertiary care center. Ann Emerg Med 2010, 56:S57.
14. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Task Group 18. AAPM On-line Report No. 3. Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems [online]. American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 18 Imaging Informatics Subcommittee 2005. Available at: . http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/OR_03.pdf.
15. Food and Drug Administration. Press release: FDA clears first diagnostic radiology application for mobile devices. Food and Drug Administration. February 4, 2011. Available at: . http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm242295.htm.
16. Brennan P.C., McEntee M., Evanoff M., et al. Ambient lighting: effect of illumination on soft-copy viewing of radiographs of the wrist. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007, 188:W177-W180.
17. Dorfman D.D., Berbaum K.S., Metz C.E. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992, 27:723-731.
18. Dorfman D.D., Berbaum K.S., Lenth R.V., et al. Monte Carlo validation of a multireader method for receiver operating characteristic discrete rating data: Factorial experimental design. Acad Radiol 1998, 5:591-602.
19. Hillis S.L., Berbaum K.S. Power estimation for the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method. Acad Radiol 2004, 11:1260-1273.
20. Hillis S.L., Obuchowski N.A., Schartz K.M., et al. A comparison of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz and Obuchowski-Rockette methods for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) data. Stat Med 2005, 24:1579-1607.
21. Hillis S.L. Monte Carlo validation of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method using normalized pseudovalues and less data-based model simplification. Acad Radiol 2005, 12:1534-1541.
22. Hillis S.L. A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom for multiple observer ROC analysis. Stat Med 2007, 26:596-619.
23. Hillis S.L., Berbaum K.S., Metz C.E. Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. Acad Radiol 2008, 15:647-661.
24. Johnston W.K., Patel B.N., Low R.K., et al. Wireless teleradiology for renal colic and renal trauma. J Endourol 2005, 19:32-36.
25. Modi J., Sharma P., Earl A., et al. iPhone-based teleradiology for the diagnosis of acute cervico-dorsal spine trauma. Can J Neurol Sci 2010, 37:849-854.
26. Lowe J., Brennan P., Evanoff M., et al. Variations in performance of LCDs are still evident after DICOM gray-scale standard display calibration. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010, 195:181-187.
27. Krupinski E.A. Medical grade vs off-the-shelf color displays: influence on observer performance and visual search. J Digit Imaging 2009, 22:363-368.
28. Sun H., Nemecek A.N. Optimal management of malignant spinal cord compression. Haematol Oncol Clin N Am 2010, 24:537-551.
29. Samphao S., Eremin J.M., Eremin O. Oncological emergencies: clinical importance and principles of management. Eur J Cancer Care 2010, 19:707-713.
30. Demaeral P. Magnetic resonance imaging of spinal cord trauma: a pictorial review. Neuroradiology 2006, 48:223-232.
31. Bozzo A., Marcoux J., Radhakrishna M., et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of acute spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma 2010, 28:1401-1411.
32. Goldberg A.L., Kershah S.M. Advances in imaging of vertebral and spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med 2010, 33:105-116.
33. Winters M.E., Kluetz P., Zilberstein J. Back pain emergencies. Med Clin N Am 2006, 90:505-523.
34. Sheerin F., Collison K., Quaghebeur G. Magnetic resonance imaging of acute intramedullary myelopathy: radiological differential diagnosis for the on-call radiologist. Clin Radiol 2009, 64:84-94.
35. Rankey D., Leach J.L., Leach S.D. Emergency MRI utilization trends at a tertiary care academic medical center: baseline data. Acad Radiol 2008, 15:438-443.
36. Metz C.E. Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. Invest Radiol 1989, 24:234-245.