Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20069781›Full record

ArticleSeminars in diagnostic pathology2009

Virtual slide telepathology workstation-of-the-future: lessons learned from teleradiology.

Elizabeth A Krupinski

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Seminars in diagnostic pathology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Display evaluation for primary diagnosis using digital pathology.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2020
    Article
  2. Article
  3. The history of pathology informatics: A global perspective.Journal of pathology informatics · 2013
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Elizabeth A KrupinskiDepartment of Radiology, Arizona Telemedicine Program, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85724, USA. krupinski@radiology.arizona.edu

Funding

Eyestrain in RadiologistsR01EB004987 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI KRUPINSKI, ELIZABETH A · 2006 to 2016
$2.6M
Optimized Compression for Telepathology Virtual SlidesR01EB008055 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI KRUPINSKI, ELIZABETH A · 2007 to 2009
$1.2M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01EB004987NIBIB NIH HHS R01EB008055
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The clinical reading environment for the twenty-first century pathologist looks very different than it did even a few short years ago. Glass slides are quickly being replaced by digital "virtual slides" and the traditional light microscope is being replaced by the computer display. There are numerous questions that arise however when deciding exactly what this new digital display viewing environment be like. Choosing a workstation for daily use in the interpretation of digital pathology images can be a very daunting task. Radiology went digital nearly 20 years ago and faced many of the same challenges so there are lessons to be learned from these experiences. One major lesson is that there is no "one size fits all" workstation so users must consider a variety of factors when choosing a workstation. In this article, we summarize some of the potentially critical elements in a pathology workstation and the characteristics one should be aware of and look for in the selection of one. Issues pertaining to both hardware and software aspects of medical workstations will be reviewed particularly as they may impact the interpretation process.

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.