ArticleJournal of digital imaging2016
Mobile Image Interpretation: Diagnostic Performance of CT Exams Displayed on a Tablet Computer in Detecting Abdominopelvic Hemorrhage.
Article in Journal of digital imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of medical-grade and calibrated consumer-grade displays for diagnosis of subtle bone fissures.European radiology · 2017Trial
- A Feasibility Study of Telementoring for Identifying the Appendix Using Smartphone-Based Telesonography.Journal of digital imaging · 2017Trial
- Mobile applications in radiology: own study based on polish data.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Measurement Challenges for Medical Image Display Devices.Journal of digital imaging · 2021Review
- ESR paper on the proper use of mobile devices in radiology.Insights into imaging · 2018Review
- Performance assessment on the Korean Computerized Neurobehavioral Test using a mobile device and a conventional computer: an experimental study.Annals of occupational and environmental medicine · 2018Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate whether abdominopelvic hemorrhage shown on computed tomography (CT) images can be diagnosed with the same accuracy on a tablet computer as on a dedicated reading display. One hundred patients with a clinical suspicion of abdominopelvic hemorrhage that underwent biphasic CT imaging were retrospectively read by two readers on a dedicated reading display (reference standard) and on a tablet computer (iPad Air). Reading was performed in a dedicated reading room with ambient light conditions. Image evaluation included signs of an active hemorrhage (extravasation of contrast media) and different signs indicating a condition after abdominopelvic hemorrhage (hematoma, intestinal clots, vessel stump, free abdominopelvic fluid with a mean Hounsfield unit value >20, and asymmetric muscle volume indicating intramuscular hemorrhage). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) were calculated for the tablet-based reading. Active abdominopelvic hemorrhage (n = 72) was diagnosed with the tablet computer with a sensitivity of 0.96, a specificity of 0.93, a PPV of 0.97, and an NPV of 0.90. The results for the detection of the signs indicating a condition after abdominopelvic hemorrhage range from 0.83 to 1.00 in the case of sensitivity, from 0.95 to 1.00 in the case of specificity, from 0.94 to 1.00 in the case of the PPV, and from 0.96 to 1.00 in the case of the NPV. Abdominopelvic hemorrhage shown on CT images can be diagnosed on a tablet computer with a high diagnostic accuracy allowing mobile on-call diagnoses. This may be helpful because an early and reliable diagnosis at any time is crucial for an adequate treatment strategy.
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.