ArticlePloS one2013
Image quality characteristics of handheld display devices for medical imaging.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiological interpretation of images displayed on tablet computers: a systematic review.The British journal of radiology · 2015Pooled it
- Handheld Ultrasound: Technical Review and International Expert Consensus Recommendations.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Inter-System Variability of Eight Different Handheld Ultrasound (HHUS) Devices-A Prospective Comparison of B-Scan Quality and Clinical Significance in Intensive Care.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Quality assessment of colour fundus and fluorescein angiography images using deep learning.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Evaluation of a Novel Teleradiology Technology for Image-Based Distant Consultations: Applications in Neurosurgery.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Measurement Challenges for Medical Image Display Devices.Journal of digital imaging · 2021Review
- Image-based teleconsultation using smartphones or tablets: qualitative assessment of medical experts.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2017Article
- The effect of time in use on the display performance of the iPad.The British journal of radiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Handheld devices such as mobile phones and tablet computers have become widespread with thousands of available software applications. Recently, handhelds are being proposed as part of medical imaging solutions, especially in emergency medicine, where immediate consultation is required. However, handheld devices differ significantly from medical workstation displays in terms of display characteristics. Moreover, the characteristics vary significantly among device types. We investigate the image quality characteristics of various handheld devices with respect to luminance response, spatial resolution, spatial noise, and reflectance. We show that the luminance characteristics of the handheld displays are different from those of workstation displays complying with grayscale standard target response suggesting that luminance calibration might be needed. Our results also demonstrate that the spatial characteristics of handhelds can surpass those of medical workstation displays particularly for recent generation devices. While a 5 mega-pixel monochrome workstation display has horizontal and vertical modulation transfer factors of 0.52 and 0.47 at the Nyquist frequency, the handheld displays released after 2011 can have values higher than 0.63 at the respective Nyquist frequencies. The noise power spectra for workstation displays are higher than 1.2 × 10(-5) mm(2) at 1 mm(-1), while handheld displays have values lower than 3.7 × 10(-6) mm(2). Reflectance measurements on some of the handheld displays are consistent with measurements for workstation displays with, in some cases, low specular and diffuse reflectance coefficients. The variability of the characterization results among devices due to the different technological features indicates that image quality varies greatly among handheld display devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.