ArticleEuropean radiology2018
Stylus/tablet user input device for MRI heart wall segmentation: efficiency and ease of use.
Article in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Different Nursing Interventions on Discharged Patients with Cardiac Valve Replacement Evaluated by Deep Learning Algorithm-Based MRI Information.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Analysis of cardiac dynamic global function.JRSM cardiovascular diseaseArticle
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
objectivesTo determine whether use of a stylus user input device (UID) would be superior to a mouse for CMR segmentation.
methodsTwenty-five consecutive clinical cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) examinations were selected. Image analysis was independently performed by four observers. Manual tracing of left (LV) and right (RV) ventricular endocardial contours was performed twice in 10 randomly assigned sessions, each session using only one UID. Segmentation time and the ventricular function variables were recorded. The mean segmentation time and time reduction were calculated for each method. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots of function variables were used to assess intra- and interobserver variability and agreement between methods. Observers completed a Likert-type questionnaire.
resultsThe mean segmentation time (in seconds) was significantly less with the stylus compared to the mouse, averaging 206±108 versus 308±125 (p<0.001) and 225±140 versus 353±162 (p<0.001) for LV and RV segmentation, respectively. The intra- and interobserver agreement rates were excellent (ICC≥0.75) regardless of the UID. There was an excellent agreement between measurements derived from manual segmentation using different UIDs (ICC≥0.75), with few exceptions. Observers preferred the stylus.
conclusionThe study shows a significant reduction in segmentation time using the stylus, a subjective preference, and excellent agreement between the methods. KEY POINTS: • Using a stylus for MRI ventricular segmentation is faster compared to mouse • A stylus is easier to use and results in less fatigue • There is excellent agreement between stylus and mouse UIDs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29721687What 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.