ArticleTrials2023
Smartphone imaging repository: a novel method for creating a CT image bank.
Article in Trials, 2023. 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImaging repositories are commonly attached to ongoing clinical trials, but capturing, transmitting, and storing images can be complicated and labor-intensive. Typical methods include outdated technologies such as compact discs. Electronic file transfer is becoming more common, but even this requires hours of staff time on dedicated computers in the radiology department.
methodsWe describe and test an image capture method using smartphone camera video-derived images of brain computed tomography (CT) scans of traumatic intracranial hemorrhage. The deidentified videos are emailed or uploaded from the emergency department for central adjudication. We selected eight scans, mild moderate, and severe subdural and multicompartmental hematomas and mild and moderate intraparenchymal hematomas. Ten users acquired data using seven different smartphones. We measured the time in seconds it took to capture and send the files. The primary outcomes were hematoma volume measured by ABC/2, Marshall scale, midline shift measurement, image quality by a contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and time to capture. A radiologist and an imaging scientist applied the ABC/2 method and calculated the Marshall scale and midline shift on the data acquired on different smartphones and the PACS in a randomized order. We calculate the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). We measured image quality by calculating the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). We report summary statistics on time to capture in the smartphone group without a comparator.
resultsICC for lesion volume, midline shift, and Marshall score were 0.973 (95% CI 0.931, 0.994), 0.998 (95% CI: 0.996, 0.999), and 0.973 (0.931, 0.994), respectively. Lesion conspicuity was not different among the image types via assessment of CNR using the Friedman test, [Formula: see text] of 24.8, P = < .001, with a small Kendall's W effect size (0.591). Mean (standard deviation) time to capture and email the video was 60.1 (24.3) s.
conclusionsTypical smartphones may produce video image quality high enough for use in a clinical trial imaging repository. Video capture and transfer takes only seconds, and hematoma volumes, Marshall scales, and image quality measured on the videos did not differ significantly from those calculated on the PACS.
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.