Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29228921›Full record

ArticleBMC medical imaging2017

Testing of the assisting software for radiologists analysing head CT images: lessons learned.

Petr Martynov, Nikolai Mitropolskii, Katri Kukkola, Monika Gretsch, Vesa-Matti Koivisto, Ilkka Lindgren, Jani Saunavaara, Jarmo Reponen, Anssi Mäkynen

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comprehensive Evaluation of User Interface for Ventilators Based on Respiratory Therapists' Performance, Workload, and User Experience.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2018
    Article
  2. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Petr MartynovOptoelectronics and Measurement Techniques Unit, University of Oulu, PO Box 4500, 90014, Oulu, Finland. petr.martynov@oulu.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7836-9324
Nikolai MitropolskiiOptoelectronics and Measurement Techniques Unit, University of Oulu, PO Box 4500, 90014, Oulu, Finland.
Katri KukkolaOptoelectronics and Measurement Techniques Unit, University of Oulu, PO Box 4500, 90014, Oulu, Finland.
Monika GretschDepartment of Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, PO Box 50, 90029, Oulu, Finland.
Vesa-Matti KoivistoDepartment of Radiology, Lapland Hospital District, PO Box 8041, 96101, Rovaniemi, Finland.
Ilkka LindgrenDepartment of Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, PO Box 50, 90029, Oulu, Finland.
Jani SaunavaaraMedical Imaging Centre of Southwest Finland, Turku University Hospital, PO Box 52, 20521, Turku, Finland.
Jarmo ReponenFinntelemedicum, Research Unit of Medical Imaging, Physics and Technology, University of Oulu; Department of Radiology, Hospital of Raahe, PL 25, 92101, Raahe, Finland.
Anssi MäkynenOptoelectronics and Measurement Techniques Unit, University of Oulu, PO Box 4500, 90014, Oulu, Finland.
University of Oulu · FIOulu University Hospital · FILapland Central Hospital · FITurku University Hospital · FI

Funding

Tekes 2490/31/2014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssessing a plan for user testing and evaluation of the assisting software developed for radiologists.

methodsTest plan was assessed in experimental testing, where users performed reporting on head computed tomography studies with the aid of the software developed. The user testing included usability tests, questionnaires, and interviews. In addition, search relevance was assessed on the basis of user opinions.

resultsThe testing demonstrated weaknesses in the initial plan and enabled improvements. Results showed that the software has acceptable usability level but some minor fixes are needed before larger-scale pilot testing. The research also proved that it is possible even for radiologists with under a year's experience to perform reporting of non-obvious cases when assisted by the software developed. Due to the small number of test users, it was impossible to assess effects on diagnosis quality.

conclusionsThe results of the tests performed showed that the test plan designed is useful, and answers to the key research questions should be forthcoming after testing with more radiologists. The preliminary testing revealed opportunities to improve test plan and flow, thereby illustrating that arranging preliminary test sessions prior to any complex scenarios is beneficial.

Indexed as

SoftwareHeadHumansObserver VariationRadiologistsResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesTomography, X-Ray ComputedUser-Computer InterfaceBrain imagingComputed tomographyComputer softwareResearch designSearch engine

Identifiers

PMID29228921
PMCPMC5724344
OpenAlexW2772204177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.