ArticleScientific reports2018
Application of cardiovascular virtual endoscopy: a pilot study on roaming path planning for diagnosis of congenital heart diseases in children.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate roaming paths planning for diagnosis of congenital heart diseases (CHD) using a cardiovascular virtual endoscopy (VE) system. Forty children were enrolled. VE system was applied to support in establishing a diagnosis. Performance in diagnosing CHDs by CT, VE using automatically planned roaming paths (VE-auto, objects were treated as left heart system and right heart system), VE using manually planned paths (VE-manual), and VE using automatically planned path for left heart system and manually planned path for right heart system (VE-combined) were studied and compared. Comparable accuracy of 93%, 93%, 95% and 95% was found by CT, VE-auto, VE-manual and VE-combined. However, in diagnosing tetralogy of Fallot, significantly higher performance was found by VEs, compared with CT. For VE-auto, poor performance with an accuracy of 85% and sensitivity of 22% was revealed in diagnosing muscular ventricular septal defect, compared with VE-manual and VE-combined. Compared with VE-manual, VE-combined illustrated comparable diagnostic accuracy on all CHDs; however, significantly smaller diagnostic time was utilized (P < 0.05).Cardiovascular VE system demonstrated considerable clinical value in the diagnosis of CHDs. Left and right heart system should not be modeled as two cavity objects simultaneously. When one of two systems is treated as one object, the other system should be treated as three separate objects when using VE to diagnose CHDs.
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.