ArticleThe archives of bone and joint surgery2019
An Evaluation of Digital Imaging Studies in an Outpatient Orthopedic Setting.
Article in The archives of bone and joint surgery, 2019. 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, 0 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDistribution of radiographic images in the outpatient setting on compact discs-recordable (CD-R) is commonplace. Opening, manipulating and interpreting these can be challenging. This study evaluated the availability and ease of use of CD-R to evaluate digital images in an outpatient orthopedic setting.
methods118 CD-R containing diagnostic studies were evaluated by seven board certified orthopaedic surgeons. Surgeon age and self-perceived "tech savvy" scores were tabulated using a visual analog scale (VAS). Surgeons evaluated: ability and number of computers to open, autorun, and specific reader software. Time to load was recorded in seconds, type of study, presence of "not for diagnostic use", and if the disc required additional software. Studies were graded using a VAS for ease of opening, ability to move from image to image and/or between series, to manipulate the image, and to zoom and pan.
resultsThere were 79 radiographs, 29 MRI's, and 10 CT scans. Seven (6%) had to be manually opened and four (3%) required software installation. Thirteen (11%) contained a warning that the studies should not be used for diagnostic purposes. Six (5%) of the studies could not be opened. For the opened studies, average time from disk insertion to image was 43.7 seconds overall (range 3-350), 65.3 seconds (range 21-191) for MRI and CT, and 35.2 seconds (range 5-177) for radiographs.
conclusionThe present digital imaging systems include different software types and a variety of interfaces. Improving this would decrease time and effort necessary to open and evaluate these studies, and improve efficiency. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31312680PMC6578472W2921619586What 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.