Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30249586›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018

Assessment of Google Glass for Photographic Documentation in Veterinary Forensic Pathology: Usability Study.

Giuseppe Piegari, Valentina Iovane, Vincenzo Carletti, Rosario Fico, Alessandro Costagliola, Davide De Biase, Francesco Prisco, Orlando Paciello

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Towards Wearable Augmented Reality in Healthcare: A Comparative Survey and Analysis of Head-Mounted Displays.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Giuseppe PiegariDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1637-4205
Valentina IovaneDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0021-5920
Vincenzo CarlettiDepartment of Information and Electrical Engineering and Applied Mathematics, University of Salerno, Fisciano, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9130-5533
Rosario FicoIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Regioni Lazio e Toscana, National Center for the Forensic Veterinary Medicine, Grosseto, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4846-4018
Alessandro CostagliolaDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7962-2843
Davide De BiaseDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8118-9807
Francesco PriscoDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0399-1239
Orlando PacielloDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3091-0905
University of Naples Federico II · ITUniversity of Salerno · ITIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Regioni Lazio e Toscana · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGoogle Glass is a head-mounted device designed in the shape of a pair of eyeglasses equipped with a 5.0-megapixel integrated camera and capable of taking pictures with simple voice commands.

objectiveThe objective of our study was to determine whether Google Glass is fit for veterinary forensic pathology purposes.

methodsA total of 44 forensic necropsies of 2 different species (22 dogs and 22 cats) were performed by 2 pathologists; each pathologist conducted 11 necropsies of each species and, for each photographic acquisition, the images were taken with a Google Glass device and a Nikon D3200 digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera. The pictures were collected, divided into 3 groups (based on the external appearance of the animal, organs, and anatomical details), and evaluated by 5 forensic pathologists using a 5-point score system. The parameters assessed were overall color settings, region of interest, sharpness, and brightness. To evaluate the difference in mean duration between necropsies conduced with Google Glass and DSLR camera and to assess the battery consumption of the devices, an additional number of 16 necropsies were performed by the 2 pathologists. In these cases, Google Glass was used for photographic reports in 8 cases (4 dogs and 4 cats) and a Nikon D3200 reflex camera in the other 8 cases. Statistical evaluations were performed to assess the differences in ratings between the quality of the images taken with both devices.

resultsThe images taken with Google Glass received significantly lower ratings than those acquired with reflex camera for all 4 assessed parameters (P<.001). In particular, for the pictures of Groups A and B taken with Google Glass, the sum of frequency of ratings 5 (very good) and 4 (good) was between 50% and 77% for all 4 assessed parameters. The lowest ratings were observed for the pictures of Group C, with a sum of frequency of ratings 5 and 4 of 21.1% (342/1602) for region of interest, 26% (421/1602) for sharpness, 35.5% (575/1602) for overall color settings, and 61.4% (995/1602) for brightness. Furthermore, we found a significant reduction in the mean execution time for necropsy conduced with the Google Glass with respect to the reflex group (P<.001). However, Google Glass drained the battery very quickly.

conclusionsThese findings suggest that Google Glass is usable in veterinary forensic pathology. In particular, the image quality of Groups A and B seemed adequate for forensic photographic documentation purposes, although the quality was lower than that with the reflex camera. However, in this step of development, the high frequency of poor ratings observed for the pictures of Group C suggest that the device is not suitable for taking pictures of small anatomical details or close-ups of the injuries.

Indexed as

documentationGoogle Glassmobile phonenecropsypicturesveterinary forensic pathology

Identifiers

PMID30249586
PMCPMC6231880
OpenAlexW2801080976

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.