Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28861693›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2018

Mixed reality ultrasound guidance system: a case study in system development and a cautionary tale.

Golafsoun Ameri, John S H Baxter, Daniel Bainbridge, Terry M Peters, Elvis C S Chen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Golafsoun AmeriRobarts Research Institute, Western University, London, ON, Canada. gameri@robarts.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8432-7478
John S H BaxterRobarts Research Institute, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Daniel BainbridgeLondon Health Sciences Centre, London, ON, Canada.
Terry M PetersRobarts Research Institute, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Elvis C S ChenRobarts Research Institute, Western University, London, ON, Canada.

Funding

The Canadian Foundation for Innovation 20994The Canadian Institutes for Health Research FDN 143232The Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada RPGIN 2014-04504
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeReal-time ultrasound has become a crucial aspect of several image-guided interventions. One of the main constraints of such an approach is the difficulty in interpretability of the limited field of view of the image, a problem that has recently been addressed using mixed reality, such as augmented reality and augmented virtuality. The growing popularity and maturity of mixed reality has led to a series of informal guidelines to direct development of new systems and to facilitate regulatory approval. However, the goals of mixed reality image guidance systems and the guidelines for their development have not been thoroughly discussed. The purpose of this paper is to identify and critically examine development guidelines in the context of a mixed reality ultrasound guidance system through a case study.

methodsA mixed reality ultrasound guidance system tailored to central line insertions was developed in close collaboration with an expert user. This system outperformed ultrasound-only guidance in a novice user study and has obtained clearance for clinical use in humans. A phantom study with 25 experienced physicians was carried out to compare the performance of the mixed reality ultrasound system against conventional ultrasound-only guidance. Despite the previous promising results, there was no statistically significant difference between the two systems.

resultsGuidelines for developing mixed reality image guidance systems cannot be applied indiscriminately. Each design decision, no matter how well justified, should be the subject of scientific and technical investigation. Iterative and small-scale evaluation can readily unearth issues and previously unknown or implicit system requirements.

conclusionsWe recommend a wary eye in development of mixed reality ultrasound image guidance systems emphasizing small-scale iterative evaluation alongside system development. Ultimately, we recommend that the image-guided intervention community furthers and deepens this discussion into best practices in developing image-guided interventions.

Indexed as

Computer SystemsPhantoms, ImagingCatheterization, Central VenousHumansSurgery, Computer-AssistedUltrasonographyAugmented realityAugmented virtualityCentral lineGuidelinesInternal jugular vein catheterizationMixed realitySystem developmentUltrasound guidance

Identifiers

PMID28861693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.