IF the image is of sufficient resolution, then I don’t see why it could not be used as such - it would just take a bit longer with zooming in and looking at each individual area closely.
Agreed, but...it really does seem like a stretch, when you consider the monitor calibration hassles and record keeping that one is mandated to go through on diagnostic workstations.
It just seems...er...odd.
Orthopaedists routinely consult ER docs by remotely viewing images on laptops/pc’s. Now the technology is pocket sized.
Resolution was certainly one factor, but the bigger factor was the gray scale on CRT monitors. 8-bit grayscale (256 levels) was not sufficient.
Nice for showing patients whats up at bedside or in your Docs office but I doubt many radiologists will be diagnosing by reading from their Ipad.
I think the difficulty on such a small device would be that you were zoomed in that much, and you pan the image in one direction...how do you know you didn’t pan a little to much and miss a quarter inch of the image...that quarter inch that shows the key point of fracture or whatever.
The iPad might be a good thing, though. This is fascinating, all the factors around this that one has to consider. I am interested to hear what the rads think of it.
On Monday. Tomorrow...:) Today is Super Bowl day!