Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Geburtshilfe und Fra...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde
Article . 2014 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

iPads in Breast Imaging – A Phantom Study

Authors: Ruediger Schulz-Wendtland; Michael Uder; Matthias Hammon; Siegfried A. Schwab; P Schlechtweg;

iPads in Breast Imaging – A Phantom Study

Abstract

Introduction: Modern tablet PCs as the iPad are becoming more and more integrated into medicine. The aim of this study was to evaluate the display quality of iPads regarding digital mammography. Materials and Methods: Three experienced readers compared the display quality of the iPad 2 and 3 with a dedicated 10 megapixel (MP) mammography liquid crystal display (LCD) screen in consensus using the standardized Contrast Detail Mammography (CDMAM) phantom. Phantom fields without agreement between the readers were classified as "uncertain", correct 2 : 1 decisions were classified as "uncertain/readable". In a second step display quality of the three reading devices was judged subjectively in a side by side comparison. Results: The 10 MP screen was superior to both iPads in 4 (phantom-)fields and inferior in 2 fields. Comparing the iPads, version 3 was superior in 4 fields and version 2 was superior in 1 field. However these differences were not significant. Total number of "uncertain" fields did not show significant differences. The number of "uncertain" fields was 15 with the 10 MP screen, 16 with the iPad 2 and 17 with the iPad 3 (p > 0.05), the number of "uncertain/readable" fields was 4, 7 and 8, respectively. Subjective image quality of the iPad 3 and the 10 MP screen was rated superior to the iPad 2. Conclusion: The evaluated iPads, especially in version 3, seem to be adequate to display mammograms in a diagnostic quality and thus could be useful e.g. for patient consultation, clinical demonstration or educational and teaching purposes. However primary mammogram reading should still be performed on dedicated large sized reading screens.

Related Organizations
  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    4
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
4
Average
Average
Average
bronze