Image review on computer-based workstations has made film-based
review outdated. Despite advances in technology, the lack of portability of
digital workstations creates an inherent disadvantage. As such, we sought to
determine if the quality of image review on a handheld device is adequate
for routine clinical use.
Six CT/CTA cases and six MR/MRA cases were independently reviewed by
three neuroradiologists in varying environments: high and low ambient light
using a handheld device and on a traditional imaging workstation in ideal
conditions. On first review (using a handheld device in high ambient light),
a preliminary diagnosis for each case was made. Upon changes in review
conditions, neuroradiologists were asked if any additional features were
seen that changed their initial diagnoses. Reviewers were also asked to
comment on overall clinical quality and if the handheld display was of
acceptable quality for image review.
After the initial CT review in high ambient light, additional
findings were reported in 2 of 18 instances on subsequent reviews.
Similarly, additional findings were identified in 4 of 18 instances after
the initial MR review in high ambient lighting. Only one of these six
additional findings contributed to the diagnosis made on the initial
Use of a handheld device for image review is of adequate diagnostic
quality based on image contrast, sharpness of structures, visible artefacts
and overall display quality. Although reviewers were comfortable with using
this technology, a handheld device with a larger screen may be