ArticleNeurosurgical review2022
Does stereoscopic imaging improve the memorization of medical imaging by neurosurgeons? Experience of a single institution.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Personalized surgical informed consent with stereoscopic visualization in neurosurgery-real benefit for the patient or unnecessary gimmick?Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Trial
- HFR-Video-Based Stereo Correspondence Using High Synchronous Short-Term Velocities.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stereoscopic imaging has increasingly been used in anatomical teaching and neurosurgery. The aim of our study was to analyze the potential utility of stereoscopic imaging as a tool for memorizing neurosurgical patient cases compared to conventional monoscopic visualization. A total of 16 residents and 6 consultants from the Department of Neurosurgery at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin were recruited for the study. They were divided into two equally experienced groups. A comparative analysis of both imaging modalities was conducted in which four different cases were assessed by the participants. Following the image assessment, two questionnaires, one analyzing the subjective judgment using the 5-point Likert Scale and the other assessing the memorization and anatomical accuracy, were completed by all participants. Both groups had the same median year of experience (5) and stereoacuity (≤ 75 s of arc). The analysis of the first questionnaire demonstrated significant subjective superiority of the monoscopic imaging in evaluation of the pathology (median: monoscopic: 4; stereoscopic: 3; p = 0.020) and in handling of the system (median: monoscopic: 5; stereoscopic: 2; p < 0.001). The second questionnaire showed that the anatomical characterization of the pathologies was comparable between both visualization methods. Most participants rated the stereoscopic visualization as worse compared to the monoscopic visualization, probably due to a lack of familiarity with the newer technique. Stereoscopic imaging, however, was not objectively inferior to traditional monoscopic imaging for anatomical comprehension. Further methodological developments and incorporation in routine clinical workflows will most likely enhance the usability and acceptance of stereoscopic visualization.
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.