RESUMO
Purpose: To evaluate a commercially available mobile device for the highly specialized task of detection of intracranial arterial aneurysm in telemedicine. Methods: Six radiologists with three different levels of experience retrospectively interpreted 60 computed tomography (CT) angiographies for the presence of intracranial arterial aneurysm, among them 30 cases with confirmed positive findings. Each radiologist reviewed the angiography datasets twice: once on a dedicated medical-grade workstation and on a commercially available mobile consumer-grade tablet with an interval of 3 months. Diagnostic performance, reading efficiency and subjective scorings including diagnostic confidence were analyzed and compared. Results: Diagnostic performance was comparable on both devices regardless of readers' experience, and no significant differences in sensitivity (66-87.5%) and specificity (79.4-87%) were found. Results obtained with tablets and medical workstations were also comparable in terms of subjective assessment across all reader groups. Conclusions: There was no significant difference between tablet and workstation readings of angiography datasets for the presence of intracranial arterial aneurysm. Sensitivity, specificity, efficiency and subjective scorings were similar with the two devices for all three reader groups. While medical workstations are 10 times more expensive, tablets allow higher mobility especially for radiologists on call.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Process optimization in computed tomography (CT) and telemedicine. PURPOSE: To compare image quality and objective diagnostic accuracy of medical-grade and consumer-grade digital displays/computer terminals for detection of intracranial aneurysms. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four radiologists with different levels of experience retrospectively read a total of 60 patients including 30 cases of proven therapy-naïve intracranial aneurysm detectable on a medical-grade grayscale calibrated display. They had 5 min per case reading the first 20 datasets using only axial slices, the next 20 patients using axial slices and multiplanar reconstructions (MPRs), and the last 20 patients using axial slices, MPRs, and maximum intensity projections (MIPs). Three months after the first reading session on a medical-grade display, they read all datasets again under the same standardized conditions but on a consumer-grade display. Diagnostic performance, subjective diagnostic confidence, and reading speed were analyzed and compared. Readers rated image quality on a five-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy did not differ significantly with areas under the curve of 0.717-0.809 for all readers on both display devices. Sensitivity and specificity did not increase significantly when adding MPRs and/or MIPs. Reading speed was similar with both devices. There were no significant differences in subjective image quality scores, and overall inter-reader variability of all subjective parameters correlated positively between the two devices (P <0.001-0.011). CONCLUSION: Diagnostic accuracy and readers' diagnostic confidence in detecting and ruling out intracranial aneurysm were similar on commercial-grade and medical-grade displays. Additional reconstructions did not increase sensitivity/specificity or reduce the time needed for diagnosis.
