ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016
The effect of time in use on the display performance of the iPad.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- StimuliApp: Psychophysical tests on mobile devices.Behavior research methods · 2021Article
- Reliability of diagnosing acute ischemic cerebrovascular on magnetic resonance imaging disorders using iPads.Japanese journal of radiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate changes to the luminance, luminance uniformity and conformance to the digital imaging and communication in medicine greyscale standard display function (GSDF) as a function of time in use for the iPad.
methodsLuminance measurements of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Group 18 task group (TG18) luminance uniformity and luminance test patterns (TG18-UNL and TG18-LN8) were performed using a calibrated near-range luminance meter. Nine sets of measurements were taken, where the time in use of the iPad ranged from 0 to 2500 h.
resultsThe maximum luminance (Lmax) of the display decreased (367-338 cdm(-2)) as a function of time. The minimum luminance remained constant. The maximum non-uniformity coefficient was 11%. Luminance uniformity decreased slightly as a function of time in use. The conformance of the iPad deviated from the GSDF curve at commencement of use. Deviation did not increase as a function of time in use.
conclusionThis study has demonstrated that the iPad display exhibits luminance degradation typical of liquid crystal displays. The Lmax of the iPad fell below the American College of Radiology-AAPM-Society of Imaging Informatics in Medicine recommendations for primary displays (>350 cdm(-2)) at approximately 1000 h in use. The Lmax recommendation for secondary displays (>250 cdm(-2)) was exceeded during the entire study. The maximum non-uniformity coefficient did not exceed the recommendations for either primary or secondary displays. The deviation from the GSDF exceeded the recommendations of the TG18 for use as either a primary or secondary display. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The brightness, uniformity and contrast response are reasonably stable over the useful lifetime of the device; however, the device fails to meet the contrast response standard for either a primary or secondary display.
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.