ArticleDer Radiologe2017
[Acceptance of medical apps and e‑books among German radiologists].
Article in Der Radiologe, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decision-Making in the Pediatric Emergency Department-A Survey of Guidance Strategies among Residents.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Acceptance, Barriers, and Future Preferences of Mobile Health Among Patients Receiving Trauma and Orthopedic Surgical Care: Paper-Based Survey in a Prospective Multicenter Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Article
- DRG-Oriented Mathematical Calculation Model and Method of Integrated Medical Service Cost.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2020Article
- [Use of medical apps and online platforms among German rheumatologists : Results of the 2016 and 2018 DGRh conference surveys and research conducted by rheumadocs].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2019Article
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
purposeSmartphones, tablet PCs, mobile applications (apps) and electronic book files (e-books) affect our lives in private and job-related settings. The aim of this study was to analyze the behavior of radiologists on smartphones, tablet PCs and e‑books and to investigate its effect on their daily work. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn online survey containing of 23 questions was conducted using Survey Monkey© ( www.surveymonkey.com ). The invitation to the survey was done using the newsletter of the German Radiological Society (DRG). The acquired data was automatically stored by the software and then analyzed using descriptive statistics.
resultsIn total, 104 radiologists (29% female) participated in the online survey. Of these, 93% and 96.5% owned a smartphone or a tablet PC, respectively, and 72% and 67% used medical apps and e‑books, respectively. Through their use, 31% found moderate and 41% found enormous improvement in their daily work. A majority of participating radiologists would be willing to pay an increased user fee for optimized apps or e‑books.
conclusionWith currently only moderate individual benefit of mobile medical apps and e‑books, there is a widespread need for optimally configured apps and e‑books with a correspondingly high market potential. KEY POINTS: (1) Radiologists use smartphones (93%) or tablet PCs (96.5%); (2) 72% of radiologists use a smartphone or tablet PC for medical material; (3) 53% of radiologists report significant assistance from or a high value of the mobile medical applications used; (4) There is a willingness to pay a license fee for optimized mobile applications or e‑books.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28707151What 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.