ABSTRACT Dynamic Digital Radiography (DDR) is an emerging X‐ray technology that captures anatomical motion through rapid sequential imaging, typically at 15 frames per second. By enabling real‐time visualisation of physiological processes, DDR offers functional insights that extend beyond the capabilities of traditional static radiography. This literature review evaluates current evidence on DDR's clinical applications, with particular attention to pulmonary assessment, cardiac motion analysis and orthopaedic evaluations. Recent advances in post‐processing software, including motion quantification and enhanced visual analytics, further support DDR's potential utility in a range of clinical settings. Findings from existing studies indicate that DDR provides meaningful functional information that may assist clinicians in evaluating disease progression, monitoring treatment response and identifying subtle dynamic abnormalities. Its portability and relatively low radiation dose are notable advantages, especially for patients with limited mobility or for point‐of‐care use. DDR has shown diagnostic performance comparable to established modalities such as CT, conventional radiography and fluoroscopy in selected applications, suggesting value as a complementary imaging tool. Nevertheless, the review also highlights important limitations. Current research is constrained by small study populations and limited long‐term data. Although DDR offers versatility and unique dynamic imaging capability, its ability to outperform established modalities is unclear, making its suitability as a replacement in routine clinical practice uncertain. Broader adoption will require further large‐scale, standardised studies to establish diagnostic accuracy, reproducibility and cost‐effectiveness. Overall, DDR represents a promising adjunct to existing imaging technologies. Its ability to capture real‐time anatomical motion positions it as a valuable emerging tool with the potential to enhance functional assessment and expand imaging accessibility across varied clinical environments.
Braniff et al. (2026) studied this question.