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.
Introduction: This study investigates instances of elevated radiation dose on a radiation tracking system to determine their aetiologies. It aimed to investigate the impact of radiographer feedback on these alerts. Methods: Over two six-month periods 11,298 CT examinations were assessed using DoseWatch. Red alerts (dose length products twice the median) were identified and two independent reviewers established whether alerts were true (unjustifiable) or false (justifiable). During the second time period radiographers used a feedback tool to state the cause of the alert. A ChieSquare test was used to assess whether red alert incidence decreased following the implementation of radiographer feedback. Results: There were 206 and 357 alerts during the first and second time periods, respectively. These occurred commonly with CT pulmonary angiography, brain, and body examinations. Procedural documentation errors and patient size accounted for 57% and 43% of false alerts, respectively. Radiographer feedback was provided for 17% of studies; this was not associated with a significant change in the number of alerts, but the number of true alerts declined (from 7 to 3) (c2 ¼ 4.14; p ¼ 0.04). Conclusion: Procedural documentation errors as well as patient-related factors are associated with false alerts in DoseWatch. Implementation of a radiographer feedback tool reduced true alerts. Implications for practice: The implementation of a radiographer feedback tool reduced the rate of true dose alerts. Low uptake with dose alert systems is an issue; the workflow needs to be considered to address this.
Purpose of reviewRadiological imaging has a crucial role in pulmonary evaluation in cystic fibrosis (CF), having been shown to be more sensitive than pulmonary function testing at detecting structural lung changes. The present review summarizes the latest published information on established and evolving pulmonary imaging techniques for assessing people with this potentially life-limiting disorder. Recent findingsChest computed tomography (CT) has taken over the predominant role of chest radiography in many centres for the initial assessment and surveillance of CF lung disease. However, several emerging techniques offer a promising means of pulmonary imaging using less ionizing radiation. This is of particular importance given these patients tend to require repeated imaging throughout their lives from a young age. Such techniques include ultra-low-dose CT, tomosynthesis, dynamic radiography and magnetic resonance imaging. In addition, deep-learning algorithms are anticipated to improve diagnostic accuracy.
Objectives To assess the diagnostic accuracy of fast acquisition MRI in suspected cases of paediatric appendicitis presenting to a tertiary referral hospital. Materials and methods A prospective study was undertaken between May and October 2017 of 52 children who presented with suspected appendicitis and were referred for an abdominal ultrasound. All patients included in this study received both an abdominal ultrasound and five-sequence MRI consisting of axial and coronal gradient echo T2 scans, fat-saturated SSFSE and a diffusion-weighted scan. Participants were randomised into groups of MRI with breath-holds or MRI with free breathing. A patient satisfaction survey was also carried out. Histopathology findings, where available, were used as a gold standard for the purposes of data analysis. Statistical analysis was performed, and p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results Ultrasound had a sensitivity and specificity of 25% and 92.9%, respectively. MRI with breath-hold had a sensitivity and specificity of 81.8% and 66.7%, respectively, whilst MRI with free breathing was superior with sensitivity and specificity of 92.3% and 84.2%, respectively. MRI with free breathing was also more time efficient (p < 0.0001). Group statistics were comparable (p < 0.05). Conclusions The use of fast acquisition MRI protocols, particularly free breathing sequences, for patients admitted with suspected appendicitis can result in faster diagnosis, treatment and discharge. It also has a statistically significant diagnostic advantage over ultrasound. Additionally, the higher specificity of MR can reduce the number of negative appendectomies performed in tertiary centres.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.