ArticleJournal of digital imaging2017
Evaluation of Coronary Artery Disease and Coronary Anomalies with a Handheld Smartphone.
Article 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 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.
- HipScreen mobile app for the measurement of hip migration percentage in children with cerebral palsy: Accuracy, reliability, and discriminatory ability.Developmental medicine and child neurology · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of an iPhone for evaluation of the coronary arteries on coronary CT angiography (CTA) in comparison to a standard clinical workstation. Fifty coronary CTA exams were selected to include a range of normal and abnormal cases including both coronary artery disease (CAD) of varying severity and coronary artery anomalies. Two cardiac radiologists reviewed each exam on a standard clinical workstation initially and then on an iPhone 6 after a washout period. Coronary stenosis was evaluated on a 4-point scale and presence of coronary anomalies was recorded. Two additional cardiac radiologists reviewed all cases in consensus on the standard workstation and these results were used as the reference standard. When reader results were compared to the reference standard, there was no significant difference in agreement for per-vessel stenosis scores using either the iPhone or standard clinical workstation. The intraobserver intertechnology agreement on a per-vessel basis for obstructive CAD were 97.4% (299/307, kappa = 0.777) and 97.5% (317/325, kappa = 0.804) for the two readers. All cases of coronary anomalies were identified by both readers regardless of the device used. Coronary CTA examinations can be interpreted on a smartphone with diagnostic accuracy comparable to a standard workstation. 3D visualization app on the iPhone may facilitate urgent coronary CTA review when a workstation is not available.
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.