ReviewArchives of pathology & laboratory medicine2016
Review of Telemicrobiology.
Review in Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Use of Machine Learning for Image Analysis Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Microbiology.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2023Review
- The Critical Value of Telepathology in the COVID-19 Era.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2023Review
- Teleclinical Microbiology: An Innovative Approach to Providing Web-Enabled Diagnostic Laboratory Services in Syria.American journal of clinical pathology · 2022Article
- Eye Tracking-An Innovative Tool in Medical Parasitology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- The Trojan Horse: Digital Health, Human Rights, and Global Health Governance.Health and human rights · 2020Article
- Immune contexture analysis in immuno-oncology: applications and challenges of multiplex fluorescent immunohistochemistry.Clinical & translational immunology · 2020Review
- Update on Malaria Diagnostics and Test Utilization.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Review
- Comparison of the diagnostic utility of digital pathology systems for telemicrobiology.Journal of pathology informatics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextMicrobiology laboratories are continually pursuing means to improve quality, rapidity, and efficiency of specimen analysis in the face of limited resources. One means by which to achieve these improvements is through the remote analysis of digital images. Telemicrobiology enables the remote interpretation of images of microbiology specimens. To date, the practice of clinical telemicrobiology has not been thoroughly reviewed.
objectiveTo identify the various methods that can be employed for telemicrobiology, including emerging technologies that may provide value to the clinical laboratory. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed literature, conference proceedings, meeting presentations, and expert opinions pertaining to telemicrobiology have been evaluated.
conclusionsA number of modalities have been employed for telemicroscopy, including static capture techniques, whole slide imaging, video telemicroscopy, mobile devices, and hybrid systems. Telemicrobiology has been successfully implemented for several applications, including routine primary diagnosis, expert teleconsultation, and proficiency testing. Emerging areas of telemicrobiology include digital plate reading of bacterial cultures, mobile health applications, and computer-augmented analysis of digital images. To date, static image capture techniques have been the most widely used modality for telemicrobiology, despite newer technologies being available that may produce better quality interpretations. Telemicrobiology adds value, quality, and efficiency to the clinical microbiology laboratory, and increased adoption of telemicrobiology is anticipated.
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.