Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27082758›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2016

Gesture-Controlled Image Management for Operating Room: A Randomized Crossover Study to Compare Interaction Using Gestures, Mouse, and Third Person Relaying.

Rolf Wipfli, Victor Dubois-Ferrière, Sylvain Budry, Pierre Hoffmeyer, Christian Lovis

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Touchless interaction with software in interventional radiology and surgery: a systematic literature review.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. JSE: Joint Semantic Encoder for zero-shot gesture learning.Pattern analysis and applications : PAA · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Comparison of gesture and conventional interaction techniques for interventional neuroradiology.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rolf WipfliDivision of Medical Information Sciences, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6339-5578
Victor Dubois-FerrièreDivision of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Sylvain BudryUniversity of Geneva, Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.
Pierre HoffmeyerDivision of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Christian LovisDivision of Medical Information Sciences, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
University of Geneva · CHUniversity Hospital of Geneva · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn this work, we aim at comparing formally three different interaction modes for image manipulation that are usable in a surgery setting: 1) A gesture-controlled approach using Kinect ®; 2) oral instructions to a third part dedicated to manipulate the images; and 3) direct manipulation using a mouse. MATERIALS AND

methodsEach participant used the radiology image viewer Weasis with the three interaction modes. In a crossover randomized controlled trial participants were attributed block wise to six experimental groups. For each group, the order for testing the three modes was randomly assigned. Nine standardized scenarios were used.

results30 physicians and senior medical students participated in the experiment. Efficiency, measured as time used to pass the scenario, was best when using the mouse (M = 109.10s, SD = 25.96), followed by gesture-controlled (M = 214.97s, SD = 46.29) and oral instructions (M = 246.33s, SD = 76.50). Satisfaction, measured by a questionnaire, was rated highest in the condition mouse (M = 6.63, SD = 0.56), followed by gesture-controlled (M = 5.77, SD = 0.93) and oral instructions (M = 4.40, SD = 1.71). Differences in efficiency and satisfaction rating were significant. No significant difference in effectiveness, measured with error rates, was found. DISCUSSION: The study shows with formal evaluation that the use of gestures is advantageous over instructions to a third person. In particular, the use of gestures is more efficient than verbalizing instructions. The given gestures could be learned easily and reliability of the tested gesture-control system is good.

conclusionUnder the premise that mouse cannot be used directly during surgery, gesture-controlled approaches demonstrate to be superior to oral instructions for image manipulation.

Indexed as

GesturesOperating RoomsUser-Computer InterfaceCommunicationCross-Over StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMovementPattern Recognition, AutomatedPhysiciansReproducibility of ResultsSoftwareStudents, MedicalSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID27082758
PMCPMC4833285
OpenAlexW2339243810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.