ReviewThe British journal of radiology2016
Mobile devices and their prospective future role in emergency radiology.
Review in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinicians' perspective of picture archiving and communication systems at Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital.SA journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Usability of Mobile Solutions Intended for Diagnostic Images-A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Radiology, Mobile Devices, and Internet of Things (IoT).Journal of digital imaging · 2020Review
- ESR paper on the proper use of mobile devices in radiology.Insights into imaging · 2018Review
- Trends in radiology andEuropean radiology experimental · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mobile devices, wireless networks and software have significantly evolved since the late 1990s and are now available with sufficient computing power, speed and complexity to allow real-time interpretation of radiology studies. Emergency radiology (ER)'s time-sensitive nature would seem to be an excellent match for study interpretation using mobile devices, allowing the radiologist to read studies anywhere, at any time. While suitable for use by the radiologist outside of the hospital, or clinicians and surgeons at the bedside or in the operating room, these devices do have limitations, and regulatory approval for in-hospital diagnostic use is limited. In the ER setting, we suggest that the best use of mobile devices is to be available to consult directly with patients about their imaging findings and to the clinical team during rounds and at handover. This will bring the radiologist to the clinician and patient, helping us to better understand the patient's presentation, educate both the physician and patient and increase the visibility and value of the radiologist as a member of the clinical care team.
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.