Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 43, Issue 5, pp 1254–1261 | Cite as

Accuracy and reliability of tablet computer as an imaging console for detection of radiological signs of acute appendicitis using PACS workstation as reference standard

  • Muhammad Awais
  • Dawar Burhan Khan
  • Muhammad Danish Barakzai
  • Abdul Rehman
  • Noor Ul-Ain Baloch
  • Naila Nadeem



To ascertain the accuracy and reliability of tablet as an imaging console for detection of radiological signs of acute appendicitis [on focused appendiceal computed tomography (FACT)] using Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) workstation as reference standard.


From January, 2014 to June, 2015, 225 patients underwent FACT at our institution. These scans were blindly re-interpreted by an independent consultant radiologist, first on PACS workstation and, two weeks later, on tablet. Scans were interpreted for the presence of radiological signs of acute appendicitis. Accuracy of tablet was calculated using PACS as reference standard. Kappa (κ) statistics were calculated as a measure of reliability.


Of 225 patients, 99 had radiological evidence of acute appendicitis on PACS workstation. Tablet was 100% accurate in detecting radiological signs of acute appendicitis. Appendicoliths, free fluid, lymphadenopathy, phlegmon/abscess, and perforation were identified on PACS in 90, 43, 39, 10, and 12 scans, respectively. There was excellent agreement between tablet and PACS for detection of appendicolith (к = 0.924), phlegmon/abscess (к = 0.904), free fluid (к = 0.863), lymphadenopathy (к = 0.879), and perforation (к = 0.904).


Tablet computer, as an imaging console, was highly reliable and was as accurate as PACS workstation for the radiological diagnosis of acute appendicitis.


Teleradiology Appendicitis Handheld computers Personal digital assistants Picture Archiving and Communication Systems 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

Supplementary material

261_2017_1284_MOESM1_ESM.tif (56 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 56 kb)
261_2017_1284_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (184 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 184 kb)
261_2017_1284_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (285 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 284 kb)


  1. 1.
    Petroianu A (2012) Diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Int J Surg 10:115–119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ball WR, Privitera A (2013) Subhepatic appendicitis: a diagnostic dilemma. BMJ Case Rep . doi: 10.1136/bcr-2013-009454 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Palanivelu C, Rangarajan M, John SJ, Senthilkumar R, Madhankumar MV (2007) Laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis in uncommon situations: the advantages of a tailored approach. Singap Med J 48:737–740Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gilmore OJ, Browett JP, Griffin PH, et al. (1975) Appendicitis and mimicking conditions. A prospective study. Lancet 306:421–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kalan M, Talbot D, Cunliffe WJ, Rich AJ (1994) Evaluation of the modified Alvarado score in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: a prospective study. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 76:418–419PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Raja AS, Wright C, Sodickson AD, et al. (2010) Negative appendectomy rate in the era of CT: an 18-year perspective. Radiology 256:460–465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    The SCOAP Collaborative (2008) Negative appendectomy and imaging accuracy in the Washington State Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program. Ann Surg 248:557–563Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coursey CA, Nelson RC, Patel MB, et al. (2010) Making the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: do more preoperative CT scans mean fewer negative appendectomies? A 10-year study. Radiology 254:460–468CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Poletti PA, Platon A, De Perrot T, et al. (2011) Acute appendicitis: prospective evaluation of a diagnostic algorithm integrating ultrasound and low-dose CT to reduce the need of standard CT. Eur Radiol 21:2558–2566CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Randen A, Laméris W, van Es HW, et al. (2011) A comparison of the accuracy of ultrasound and computed tomography in common diagnoses causing acute abdominal pain. Eur Radiol 21:1535–1545CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Doria AS, Moineddin R, Kellenberger CJ, et al. (2006) US or CT for diagnosis of appendicitis in children and adults? A meta-analysis. Radiology 241:83–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pritchett CV, Levinsky NC, Ha YP, Dembe AE, Steinberg SM (2010) Management of acute appendicitis: the impact of CT scanning on the bottom line. J Am Coll Surg 210:699–707CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flum DR, Morris A, Koepsell T, Dellinger EP (2001) Has misdiagnosis of appendicitis decreased over time? A population-based analysis. JAMA 286:1748–1753CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raman SS, Osuagwu FC, Kadell B, et al. (2008) Effect of CT on false positive diagnosis of appendicitis and perforation. N Engl J Med 358:972–973CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rao PM, Rhea JT, Rattner DW, Venus LG, Novelline RA (1999) Introduction of appendiceal CT: impact on negative appendectomy and appendiceal perforation rates. Ann Surg 229:344–349CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rhea JT, Halpern EF, Ptak T, et al. (2005) The status of appendiceal CT in an urban medical center 5 years after its introduction: experience with 753 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1802–1808CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Awais M, Hilal K, Waheed A, et al. (2015) Detection and communication of critical findings noted on thoracic CT scans by radiology residents: a view from abroad. J Am Coll Radiol 12:1324–1329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Binkhuysen FHB, Ranschaert ER (2011) Teleradiology: evolution and concepts. Eur J Radiol 78:205–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rodríguez Recio FJ, Oquillas Izquierdo D (2011) Teleradiology in the emergency department: opportunity and danger. Radiologia 53:78–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raman B, Raman R, Raman L, Beaulieu CF (2004) Radiology on handheld devices: image display, manipulation, and PACS integration issues. Radiographics 24:299–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA (1997) Sensitivity and specificity of the individual CT signs of appendicitis: experience with 200 helical appendiceal CT examinations. J Comput Assist Tomogr 21:682–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Buckius MT, McGrath B, Monk J, et al. (2012) Changing epidemiology of acute appendicitis in the United States: study period 1993–2008. J Surg Res 175:185–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brenner DJ (2012) Minimising medically unwarranted computed tomography scans. Ann ICRP 41:161–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ashraf K, Ashraf O, Bari V, et al. (2006) Role of focus appendiceal computed tomography in clinically equivocal acute appendicitis. J Pak Med Assoc 56:200–203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ege G, Akman H, Sahin A, et al. (2002) Diagnostic value of unenhanced helical CT in adult patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Br J Radiol 75:721–725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Keyzer C, Zalcman M, De Maertelaer V, et al. (2005) Comparison of US and unenhanced multi-detector row CT in patients suspected of having acute appendicitis. Radiology 236:527–534CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stacher R, Portugaller H, Preidler KW, et al. (1999) Acute appendicitis in non-contrast spiral CT: a diagnostic luxury or benefit? Rofo 171:26–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tamburrini S, Brunetti A, Brown M, et al. (2007) Acute appendicitis: diagnostic value of nonenhanced CT with selective use of contrast in routine clinical settings. Eur Radiol 17:2055–2061CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bendeck SE, Nino-Murcia M, Berry GJ, et al. (2002) Imaging for suspected appendicitis: negative appendectomy and perforation rates. Radiology 225:131–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morris KT, Kavanagh M, Hansen P, et al. (2002) The rational use of computed tomography scans in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Am J Surg 183:547–550CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Torbati SS, Guss DA (2003) Impact of helical computed tomography on the outcomes of emergency department patients with suspected appendicitis. Acad Emerg Med 10:823–829CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yüksekkaya R, Akgül E, I˙nal M, et al. (2004) Unenhanced spiral CT in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Tani Girisim Radyol 10:131–139PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hlibczuk V, Dattaro JA, Jin Z, Falzon L, Brown MD (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of noncontrast computed tomography for appendicitis in adults: a systematic review. Ann Emerg Med 55:51–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McLaughlin P, McGarrigle AM, Maher MM (2011) Comparison of handheld devices for emergency radiology. Am J Roentgenol 196:W487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mobasheri MH, Johnston M, Syed UM, King D, Darzi A (2015) The uses of smartphones and tablet devices in surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Surgery 158:1352–1371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mosa ASM, Yoo I, Sheets L (2012) A systematic review of healthcare applications for smartphones. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 12:67CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Boonn WW, Flanders AE (2005) Survey of personal digital assistant use in radiology. Radiographics 25:537–541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Al-Hasani H, Abboudi H, Ninan T, Shaygi B, Roobottom C (2013) Smartphone applications for the radiologist. Open J Radiol 3:231–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Székely A, Talanow R, Bágyi P (2013) Smartphones, tablets and mobile applications for radiology. Eur J Radiol 82:829–836CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    De Maio P, White LP, Bleakney R, Menezes RJ, Theodoropoulos J (2014) Diagnostic accuracy of an iPhone DICOM viewer for the interpretation of magnetic resonance imaging of the knee. Clin J Sport Med 24:308–314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Naqvi GA, Daly M, Dawood A, Kurkuri A, Kutty S (2014) Smart consultation for musculoskeletal trauma: accuracy of using smart phones for fracture diagnosis. Surgeon 12:32–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Seong NJ, Kim B, Lee S, et al. (2014) Off-site smartphone reading of CT images for patients with inconclusive diagnoses of appendicitis from on-call radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:3–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    John S, Poh ACC, Lim TCC, Chan EHY, Chong LR (2012) The iPad tablet computer for mobile on-call radiology diagnosis? Auditing discrepancy in CT and MRI reporting. J Digit Imaging 25:628–634CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Körner H, Söndenaa K, Söreide JA, et al. (1997) Incidence of acute nonperforated and perforated appendicitis: age-specific and sex-specific analysis. World J Surg 21:313–317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyAga Khan University HospitalKarachiPakistan
  2. 2.Department of Biological & Biomedical SciencesAga Khan UniversityKarachiPakistan
  3. 3.Internal Medicine Section, Department of MedicineHamad Medical CorporationDohaQatar

Personalised recommendations