ArticleHuman factors2016
Evaluation of Simulated Clinical Breast Exam Motion Patterns Using Marker-Less Video Tracking.
Article in Human factors, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Midwifery students better approximate their self-efficacy in clinical lactation after reflecting in and on their performance in the LactSim OSCE.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2020Article
- Modeling Surgical Technical Skill Using Expert Assessment for Automated Computer Rating.Annals of surgery · 2019Article
- Familiarity and Communication in the Operating Room.The Journal of surgical research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study investigates using marker-less video tracking to evaluate hands-on clinical skills during simulated clinical breast examinations (CBEs).
backgroundThere are currently no standardized and widely accepted CBE screening techniques.
methodsExperienced physicians attending a national conference conducted simulated CBEs presenting different pathologies with distinct tumorous lesions. Single hand exam motion was recorded and analyzed using marker-less video tracking. Four kinematic measures were developed to describe temporal (time pressing and time searching) and spatial (area covered and distance explored) patterns.
resultsMean differences between time pressing, area covered, and distance explored varied across the simulated lesions. Exams were objectively categorized as either sporadic, localized, thorough, or efficient for both temporal and spatial categories based on spatiotemporal characteristics. The majority of trials were temporally or spatially thorough (78% and 91%), exhibiting proportionally greater time pressing and time searching (temporally thorough) and greater area probed with greater distance explored (spatially thorough). More efficient exams exhibited proportionally more time pressing with less time searching (temporally efficient) and greater area probed with less distance explored (spatially efficient). Just two (5.9 %) of the trials exhibited both high temporal and spatial efficiency.
conclusionsMarker-less video tracking was used to discriminate different examination techniques and measure when an exam changes from general searching to specific probing. The majority of participants exhibited more thorough than efficient patterns. APPLICATION: Marker-less video kinematic tracking may be useful for quantifying clinical skills for training and assessment.
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.