Indian Journal of Radiology Indian Journal of Radiology  

   Login   | Users online: 1325

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size     

 

 Table of Contents    
LETTER TO THE EDITOR  
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 24  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 202
Utility of mobile devices in the computerized tomography evaluation of intracranial hemorrhage


Department of Emergency Radiology, Teleradiology Solutions, Bangalore, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication12-Jun-2014
 

How to cite this article:
Panughpath SG, Kalyanpur A. Utility of mobile devices in the computerized tomography evaluation of intracranial hemorrhage. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2014;24:202

How to cite this URL:
Panughpath SG, Kalyanpur A. Utility of mobile devices in the computerized tomography evaluation of intracranial hemorrhage. Indian J Radiol Imaging [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Jun 16];24:202. Available from: http://www.ijri.org/text.asp?2014/24/2/202/134420
Dear Sir,

With reference to the comments on our article [1] published in Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging (IJRI), we appreciate the additional perspective provided by this letter and would like to respond to some of the points raised.

Regarding the matrix size of the desktop monitor, we would like to state that our article is written in the context of the review of scans in the teleradiology environment, as mobile devices are essentially used in this environment. Medical imaging monitors specification guidelines state that a minimum of 1.3 megapixel monitor is deemed sufficient for remote diagnostic interpretation. [2] It is worthy of note that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has already approved mobile applications for mobile devices for the purpose of preliminary interpretation of radiologic images. [3]

We would like to point out that the American College of Radiology's (ACR) recommendations that the aspect ratio of diagnostic monitors should be of 3:4 or 4:5 are with reference to the evaluation of radiographs. [4] Our monitors can be rotated between portrait and landscape mode depending on the modality that is to be reviewed. To view CT (as in our study) and other small matrix images in a teleradiology environment wherein the thumbnails of the various series are displayed by convention to the left of the screen, it is more optimal to have an aspect ratio of 4:3. We do agree that to view plain film radiographs, an aspect ratio of 3:4 or 4:5 would be desirable; however in our study, radiographs were not being evaluated.

We accept that the interobserver variability was not evaluated in our study. However, the purpose of our study was to compare mobile versus desktop device for an individual radiologist and we would submit that interobserver variability is not of relevance in this comparison. However based on the comments of our respected colleagues, we have retrospectively analyzed the data with a focus on interobserver variability. We found that the unweighted Kappa value for the iPad was 0.8963 with the lower and upper limits 0.95 confidence interval of 0.8154 and 0.9772. This shows that there was almost complete interobserver agreement.

With reference to the comments on contrast ratio, there is variability between the ACR and the monitor vendors in this regard. The ACR states, "The perceived contrast characteristics of an image depend on the ratio of the luminance for the maximum gray value (Lmax) to luminance for the minimum gray value (Lmin). This is the luminance ratio (LR), which is not the same as the contrast ratio often reported by monitor manufacturers." In our article we have chosen to adhere to the ACR specified luminance ratio. As per the ACR guidelines stated in the ACR technical standard for Electronic Practice of Medical Imaging, "The ratio of the maximum luminance to the minimum luminance of a display device for images other than mammography should be at least 50". [5]

Again, we appreciate the observations made and look forward to more academic discourse on this clinically relevant subject.

 
   References Top

1.Panughpath SG, Kumar S, Kalyanpur A. Utility of mobile devices in the computerized tomography evaluation of intracranial hemorrhage. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2013;23:4-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
2.Available from: http://www.health.qld.gov.au/qhcss/documents/monitor-specifications.pdf [Last accessed on 2014 Jan 20].  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Available from: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm242295.html. [Last accessed on 2014 Feb 27].  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.ACR technical standard for electronic practice of medical imaging. Available from: http://www.acr.org/secondarymainmenucategories/quality_safety/guidelines/med_phys/electronic_practice.aspx. [Last accessed on 2014 Feb 27].  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Available from: http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/PGTS/standards/ElectronicPracticeMedImg.pdf. [Last accessed 2014 Feb 27].  Back to cited text no. 5
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Sridhar G Panughpath
Department of Emergency Radiology, Teleradiology Solutions, Bangalore
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0971-3026.134420

Rights and Permissions




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
   Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1159    
    Printed19    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded104    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal