ArticleJournal of digital imaging2015
A Feasibility Study of Real-Time Remote CT Reading for Suspected Acute Appendicitis Using an iPhone.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02960685 (Can Offsite Expert Accurately Estimate the Ejection Fraction by Watching and Instructing the Onsite Novice Sonographer's Practice Via the Social Network System?), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
Can Offsite Expert Accurately Estimate the Ejection Fraction by Watching and Instructing the Onsite Novice Sonographer's Practice Via the Social Network System?
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Feasibility Study of Telementoring for Identifying the Appendix Using Smartphone-Based Telesonography.Journal of digital imaging · 2017Trial
- Article
- Virtual Read-Out: Radiology Education for the 21st Century During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Academic radiology · 2020Article
- A Feasibility Study of Smartphone-Based Telesonography for Evaluating Cardiac Dynamic Function and Diagnosing Acute Appendicitis with Control of the Image Quality of the Transmitted Videos.Journal of digital imaging · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of an iPhone-based remote control system as a real-time remote computed tomography (CT) reading tool for suspected appendicitis using a third-generation (3G) network under suboptimal illumination. One hundred twenty abdominal CT scans were selected; 60 had no signs of appendicitis, whereas the remaining 60 had signs of appendicitis. The 16 raters reviewed the images using the liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor of a picture archiving and communication system (PACS) workstation, as well as using an iPhone connected to the PACS workstation via a remote control system. We graded the probability of the presence of acute appendicitis for each examination using a five-point Likert scale. The overall sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of suspected appendicitis using the iPhone and the LCD monitor were high, and they were not significantly different (sensitivity P = 1.00, specificity P = 0.14). The average areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for all CT readings with the iPhone and LCD monitor were 0.978 (confidence interval 0.965-0.991) and 0.974 (0.960-0.988), respectively, and the two devices did not have significantly different diagnostic performances (P = 0.55). The inter-rater agreement for both devices was very good; the kappa value for the iPhone was 0.809 (0.793-0.826), and that for the LCD monitor was 0.817 (0.801-0.834). Each rater had moderate-to-very good intra-observer agreement between the two devices. We verified the feasibility of an iPhone-based remote control system as a real-time remote CT reading tool for identifying suspected appendicitis using a 3G network and suboptimal illumination.
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.