ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2017
Evaluation of user input methods for manipulating a tablet personal computer in sterile techniques.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stylus/tablet user input device for MRI heart wall segmentation: efficiency and ease of use.European radiology · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine a quick and accurate user input method for manipulating tablet personal computers (PCs) in sterile techniques.
methodsWe evaluated three different manipulation methods, (1) Computer mouse and sterile system drape, (2) Fingers and sterile system drape, and (3) Digitizer stylus and sterile ultrasound probe cover with a pinhole, in terms of the central processing unit (CPU) performance, manipulation performance, and contactlessness.
resultsA significant decrease in CPU score ([Formula: see text]) and an increase in CPU temperature ([Formula: see text]) were observed when a system drape was used. The respective mean times taken to select a target image from an image series (ST) and the mean times for measuring points on an image (MT) were [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] s for the computer mouse method, [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] s for the finger method, and [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] s for the digitizer stylus method, respectively. The ST for the finger method was significantly longer than for the digitizer stylus method ([Formula: see text]). The MT for the computer mouse method was significantly longer than for the digitizer stylus method ([Formula: see text]). The mean success rate for measuring points on an image was significantly lower for the finger method when the diameter of the target was equal to or smaller than 8 mm than for the other methods. No significant difference in the adenosine triphosphate amount at the surface of the tablet PC was observed before, during, or after manipulation via the digitizer stylus method while wearing starch-powdered sterile gloves ([Formula: see text]).
conclusionsQuick and accurate manipulation of tablet PCs in sterile techniques without CPU load is feasible using a digitizer stylus and sterile ultrasound probe cover with a pinhole.
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.