Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29655589›Full record

ReviewJournal of dermatological science2018

Emerging applications of eye-tracking technology in dermatology.

Kevin K John, Jakob D Jensen, Andy J King, Manusheela Pokharel, Douglas Grossman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of dermatological science, 2018. 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
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Kevin K JohnSchool of Communication, Brigham Young University, United States. Electronic address: kevin_john@byu.edu.
Jakob D JensenDepartment of Communication, University of Utah, United States; Cancer Control & Population Science Program, Huntsman Cancer Institute, United States.
Andy J KingDepartment of Public Relations, Texas Tech University, United States.
Manusheela PokharelDepartment of Communication, University of Utah, United States.
Douglas GrossmanDepartments of Dermatology and Oncological Sciences, University of Utah, United States; Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, United States.

Funding

Communal Feedback as an Innovative Alternative to Skin Self-ExamDP2EB022360 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI JENSEN, JAKOB DANIEL · 2015 to 2018
$2.5M
NIBIB NIH HHS DP2 EB022360
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Eye-tracking technology has been used within a multitude of disciplines to provide data linking eye movements to visual processing of various stimuli (i.e., x-rays, situational positioning, printed information, and warnings). Despite the benefits provided by eye-tracking in allowing for the identification and quantification of visual attention, the discipline of dermatology has yet to see broad application of the technology. Notwithstanding dermatologists' heavy reliance upon visual patterns and cues to discriminate between benign and atypical nevi, literature that applies eye-tracking to the study of dermatology is sparse; and literature specific to patient-initiated behaviors, such as skin self-examination (SSE), is largely non-existent. The current article provides a review of eye-tracking research in various medical fields, culminating in a discussion of current applications and advantages of eye-tracking for dermatology research.

Identifiers

PMID29655589
PMCPMC6173990

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.