ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2020
Evaluation and comparison between smartphone and photomicrography based whole slide imaging.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility of images acquired using smartphone camera for marginal and internal fit of fixed dental prosthesis: comparison and correlation study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Pre-Implantation Bovine Embryo Evaluation-From Optics to Omics and Beyond.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
- Why smartphone is a low-cost alternative in whole slide imaging?Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextIn recent years, a new concept has emerged at the forefront of slide-based diagnosis and telepathology. This is the concept of whole slide imaging. This has very recently also been tried with smartphones using complex software for photo analysis and stitching. This study is aimed to evaluate and compare the use of Jenoptik photomicrograph camera and smartphone camera-based whole slide imaging (WSI) for various microscopic preparations and slides. The study also uses a commonly available IOS smartphone device, a commonly available phone to microscope attachment, and the most commonly used Adobe Photoshop software for all stitching purposes.
aimTo evaluate and compare smartphone and photomicrography-based whole slide imaging. SUBJECTS AND
methodsThe study was conducted at the Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology in Bapuji Dental College and Hospital, Davangere. The samples included in this study are 10 slides of routine hematoxylin and eosin stain slides and 10 ground section slides of teeth and bone samples. Continuous photographs of the entire slide were captured using an IOS device and a Jenoptik camera attached research microscope at 10× magnification. The photographs were stitched using Adobe Photoshop 2017 software to obtain a whole slide image. Then, two observers analyzed the whole slide image for a possible diagnosis and thus compared the efficiency of both the methods. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The statistical Chi-square test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) H test were done using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 2010 Software.
resultsPercentage of measure of agreement was 79.5%, 83.7% and 86.3%, 89.1% for the whole slide images taken in the smartphone and photomicrograph and analyzed by Observer 1 and Observer 2, respectively.
conclusionsIn this study, it can be seen that the WSI by research microscopes is better than that with a smartphone and a compound microscope but still both the methods are equally good and can be followed with accurate results.
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.