ArticleEmergency radiology2016
Remote reading of coronary CTA exams using a tablet computer: utility for stenosis assessment and identification of coronary anomalies.
Article in Emergency radiology, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mobile applications in radiology: own study based on polish data.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Coronary Artery Disease and Coronary Anomalies with a Handheld Smartphone.Journal of digital imaging · 2017Article
- 64-Slice spiral double-low CT to evaluate the degree of stenosis and plaque composition in diagnosing coronary artery disease.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The feasibility of remote reading of coronary CT examinations on tablet computers has not been evaluated. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of coronary CT angiography reading using an iPad compared to standard 3D workstations. Fifty coronary CT angiography exams, including a spectrum of coronary artery disease and anatomic variants, were reviewed. Coronary CT angiography exams were interpreted by two readers independently on an iPad application (Siemens Webviewer) and a clinical 3D workstation at sessions 2 weeks apart. Studies were scored per vessel for severity of stenosis on a 0-3 scale (0 none, 1 <50 %, 2 ≥50-69 %, 3 ≥70 %). Coronary anomalies were recorded. A consensus read by two experienced cardiac imagers was used as the reference standard. Level of agreement with the reference for iPad and 3D workstations was compared. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the relationship between agreement and display type and to adjust for inter-reader differences. For both readers, there was no significant difference in agreement with the reference standard for per-vessel stenosis scores using either the 3D workstation or the iPad. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis including reader, workstation, and vessel as co-variates, there was no significant association between workstation type or reader and agreement with the reference standard (p > 0.05). Both readers identified 100 % of coronary anomalies using each technique. Reading of coronary CT angiography examinations on the iPad had no influence on stenosis assessment compared to the standard clinical workstation.
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.