Trial reportJournal of digital imaging2017
A Feasibility Study of Telementoring for Identifying the Appendix Using Smartphone-Based Telesonography.
Trial report in Journal of digital imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Telesonography in emergency medicine: A systematic review.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Strategies to improve communication in telementoring in acute care coordination: a scoping review.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2020Article
- Evaluation of Coronary Artery Disease and Coronary Anomalies with a Handheld Smartphone.Journal of digital imaging · 2017Article
- Telementored ultrasonography: a narrative review.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicinaReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated the feasibility of the clinical application of novice-practitioner-performed/offsite-mentor-guided ultrasonography for identifying the appendix. A randomized crossover study was conducted using a telesonography system that can transmit the ultrasound images displayed on the ultrasound monitor (ultrasound sequence video) and images showing the practitioner's operations (background video) to a smartphone without any interruption in motion over a Long-Term Evolution (LTE) network. Thirty novice practitioners were randomly assigned to two groups. The subjects in group A (n = 15) performed ultrasonography for the identification of the appendix under mentoring by an onsite expert, whereas those in group B (n = 15) performed the same procedure under mentoring by an offsite expert. Each subject performed the procedure on three simulated patients. After a 4-week interval, they performed the procedure again under the other type of mentoring. A total of 90 ultrasound examinations were performed in each scenario. The primary outcomes were the success rate for identifying the appendix and the time required to identify the appendix. The success rates for identifying the appendix were 91.1 % (82/90) in onsite-mentored ultrasonography and 87.8 % (79/90) in offsite-mentored ultrasonography; both rates were high, and there was no significant difference (p = 0.468) between them. The time required in the case of offsite mentoring (median, 242.9 s; interquartile range (IQR), 238.2) was longer than that for onsite mentoring (median, 291.4 s; IQR, 200.9); however, the difference was not significant (p = 0.051). It appears that offsite mentoring can allow novice onsite practitioners to perform ultrasonography as effectively as they can under onsite mentoring, even for examinations that require proficiency in rather complex practices, such as identifying the appendix.
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.