ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2015
Comparison of retinal image evaluation techniques in novice clinicians.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Retinal fundus evaluation is learned through experience and training. This study aimed to determine the image presentation characteristics and the accompanying evaluation techniques, which led to the most accurate and efficient retinal pathology detection method. Phase I included 25 novice clinicians asked to evaluate 14 different pathologies using spatial versus temporal image presentations. Phase II included 25 different novice clinicians asked to evaluate five different simulated pathologies at three different pixel sizes presented in both spatial and temporal image presentations. Accuracy and speed of recognition were evaluated between the spatial and temporal presentations of the same simulated pathology. In phase l, subjects were significantly faster at simulated pathology detection using a temporal presentation with a 95% accuracy rate versus a spatial presentation with a 79% accuracy rate. In phase II, subjects demonstrated significant differences in speed of detection using the temporal technique at all 3 pixel number sizes with the greatest difference in detection times shown at the smallest retinal defects. Accuracy and speed of recognition in simulated pathology assessment were improved in a temporal presentation and the greatest improvements were demonstrated at the smallest pixel numbers.
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.