ArticleJournal of digital imaging2013
Black box integration of computer-aided diagnosis into PACS deserves a second chance: results of a usability study concerning bone age assessment.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Testing of the assisting software for radiologists analysing head CT images: lessons learned.BMC medical imaging · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Usability aspects of different integration concepts for picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) and computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) were inquired on the example of BoneXpert, a program determining the skeletal age from a left hand's radiograph. CAD-PACS integration was assessed according to its levels: data, function, presentation, and context integration focusing on usability aspects. A user-based study design was selected. Statements of seven experienced radiologists using two alternative types of integration provided by BoneXpert were acquired and analyzed using a mixed-methods approach based on think-aloud records and a questionnaire. In both variants, the CAD module (BoneXpert) was easily integrated in the workflow, found comprehensible and fitting in the conceptual framework of the radiologists. Weak points of the software integration referred to data and context integration. Surprisingly, visualization of intermediate image processing states (presentation integration) was found less important as compared to efficient handling and fast computation. Seamlessly integrating CAD into the PACS without additional work steps or unnecessary interrupts and without visualizing intermediate images may considerably improve software performance and user acceptance with efforts in time.
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.