ArticleEuropean radiology2020
Alternative PACS interface devices are well-accepted and may reduce radiologist's musculoskeletal discomfort as compared to keyboard-mouse-recording device.
Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing radiology remote reading: leveraging technology to improve efficiency.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the use of two alternative picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) interface devices (a graphics tablet and a handheld controller) in clinical practice and on task-oriented exercises. MATERIAL AND
methodsEleven senior radiologists were prospectively evaluated. The participants used the two tested interface devices for 10 working periods each and answered a questionnaire to evaluate the ergonomics of this experience. The prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal discomfort with the standard PACS interface set (mouse-keyboard-recording device) and these two devices was assessed. Exercises evaluating image scrolling and selection, image zooming and panning, image windowing, performing measurements, and reporting were performed with the standard PACS interface set and with the two tested devices. The sitting posture and hand position were evaluated.
resultsThe general appreciation of the two alternative interface devices was considered to be similar to that of the standard interface set. The ergonomics of the handheld controller was considered to be slightly better than that of the standard interface set. The prevalence of musculoskeletal discomfort was 81%, 45%, and 18% for the standard interface set, graphics tablet, and handheld controller, respectively. With the graphics tablet and the handheld controller in 45% and 60%, respectively, there was a working posture change with respect to the standard interface set. The mean total exercise completion times of both tested devices were 27% higher than that of the standard interface set.
conclusionDespite the increase in completion time of the task-oriented exercises, the tested devices were well accepted and considered to be more comfortable than the standard set. KEY POINTS: • Alternative PACS interface devices can be used as a substitute for the standard mouse-keyboard-recording device set with a potential improvement in work ergonomics and a reduction in work-related musculoskeletal discomfort.
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.