Posted on October 24, 2011 Updated on June 21, 2012
This entry was posted in Positioning- Upper limb.
Im obliged for the blog article. Awesome.
Very informative blog article.Thanks Again. Keep writing.
A big thank you for your blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Really Great.
adult toys online
I value the blog.Thanks Again. Cool.
Very neat blog.Much thanks again. Keep writing.
iPad vs. secondary-class LCD monitors: It’s a draw
T1-weighted sagittal image from positive cervicodorsal spine MRI as viewed on the iPad. Source: Academic Rad 2012;19:1023-8
When reviewing spinal emergency cases on MRI, increased mobility doesn’t have to come at the cost of reduced reader accuracy as no statistical difference was seen in a multi-reader comparison of diagnostic accuracy between the iPad and a DICOM calibrated secondary-class LCD monitor, according to a study published in the August issue of Academic Radiology.
“Since its launch in April 2010, the iPad itself has generated significant interest in terms of its role in medicine and its potential application for the display of radiological images,” wrote Jonathan P. McNulty, MSc, of University College Dublin, and colleagues. Spinal emergencies in particular could benefit from the rapid initial review of an experienced radiologist using an iPad, noted the authors.
Secondary-class displays—displays designed for purposes other than providing primary diagnosis—have been shown to be a financially viable option for early review of MRIs. To compare how the iPad stacks up to a secondary-class LCD display with regard to diagnostic accuracy of spinal MRI exams, the authors conducted a multireader-multicase analysis in which 13 board-certified radiologists reviewed 31 MR cases on both display types. Among the MR cases used in the study, 13 were positive for one of four possible presentations: spinal cord compression, cauda equine syndrome, spinal cord hemorrhage or spinal cord edema. The remaining 18 MRIs served as controls.
Results showed that in multiple types of comparisons—random readers/random cases, fixed readers/random cases and random readers/fixed cases—there were no statistically significant differences between the iPad and secondary-class display in terms of area under the curve, sensitivity or specificity.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.