ReviewEchocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.)2019
A practical guide to graphic communication for quality assurance, education, and patient care in echocardiography.
Review in Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Production and Provision of Context-Based Patient-Specific Educational Resources.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Article
- Application Effect of Combining Image-Text Communication-Based Healthcare Education with Shifting of Attention on Child Patients Undergoing Inguinal Hernia Repair under General Anesthesia.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Management of oral medicine emergencies during COVID-19: A study to develop practise guidelines.Journal of dental sciences · 2021Review
- A practical guide to graphic communication for quality assurance, education, and patient care in echocardiography.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Graphic communication (GC) is useful for continuous quality improvement (CQI), education, and patient care when in-person discussion is not possible because of geographic and schedule constraints. In echocardiography, these constraints can be mitigated by (a) capturing screenshots and device photos or videos and sharing them by email or text message, (b) simultaneous viewing of images on digital displays, and (c) broadcasting the study real time during acquisition to other mobile or stationary devices. Screenshots are useful for CQI and education and can be acquired, annotated, and shared with minimal impact on the flow of clinical echo interpretation. Providers at different locations can employ GC for shared clinical decision making by viewing echo studies from the same server, video conferencing or accessing real-time broadcast from a device. Which GC tool is selected is determined by its ease of use, the provider's goals and whether immediate image review is needed.
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.