ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2015
A comparative study of input devices for digital slide navigation.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benchmarking digital displays (monitors) for histological diagnoses: the nephropathology use case.Journal of clinical pathology · 2025Article
- A comparative usability assessment of computer input devices for navigating digital whole slide images.Journal of pathology informatics · 2025Article
- Improving the Annotation Process in Computational Pathology: A Pilot Study with Manual and Semi-automated Approaches on Consumer and Medical Grade Devices.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Integrating digital pathology into clinical practice.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022Review
- Digital pathology - Rising to the challenge.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Tissue Multiplex Analyte Detection in Anatomic Pathology - Pathways to Clinical Implementation.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2021Review
- Whole slide imaging equivalency and efficiency study: experience at a large academic center.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2019Article
- A Design Study Investigating Augmented Reality and Photograph Annotation in a Digitalized Grossing Workstation.Journal of pathology informatics · 2017Article
- Exploring virtual reality technology and the Oculus Rift for the examination of digital pathology slides.Journal of pathology informatics · 2016Article
- Head-tracking as an interface device for image control in digital pathology: a comparative study.Revista espanola de patologia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Anatomia Patologica y de la Sociedad Espanola de CitologiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper describes work presented at the Nordic Symposium on Digital Pathology 2014, Linköping, Sweden. Quick and seamless integration between input devices and the navigation of digital slides remains a key barrier for many pathologists to "go digital." To better understand this integration, three different input device implementations were compared in terms of time to diagnose, perceived workload and users' preferences. Six pathologists reviewed in total nine cases with a computer mouse, a 6 degrees-of-freedom (6DOF) navigator and a touchpad. The participants perceived significantly less workload (P < 0.05) with the computer mouse and the 6DOF navigator, than with the touchpad, while no effect of the input device used on the time to diagnose was observed. Five out of six pathologists preferred the 6DOF navigator, while the touchpad was the least preferred device. While digital slide navigation is often designed to mimic microscope interaction, the results of this study demonstrate that in order to minimize workload there is reason to let the digital interaction move beyond the familiar microscope tradition.
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.