Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38102443›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024

A 5G-based telerobotic ultrasound system provides qualified abdominal ultrasound services for patients on a rural island: a prospective and comparative study of 401 patients.

Ya-Qin Zhang, Li-Ping Sun, Tian He, Le-Hang Guo, Hui Liu, Guang Xu, Hui Zhao, Qiao Wang, Jing Wang, Kai-Feng Yang and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Advanced MRI techniques in abdominal imaging.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Ya-Qin Zhang *Department of Medical Ultrasound, Center of Minimally Invasive Treatment for Tumor, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200072, China.
Li-Ping Sun *Department of Medical Ultrasound, Center of Minimally Invasive Treatment for Tumor, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200072, China.
Tian He *Department of Medical Ultrasound, Center of Minimally Invasive Treatment for Tumor, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200072, China.
Le-Hang GuoDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Center of Minimally Invasive Treatment for Tumor, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200072, China.
Hui LiuDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Center of Minimally Invasive Treatment for Tumor, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200072, China.
Guang XuDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Center of Minimally Invasive Treatment for Tumor, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200072, China.
Hui ZhaoDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Center of Minimally Invasive Treatment for Tumor, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200072, China.
Qiao WangDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Center of Minimally Invasive Treatment for Tumor, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200072, China.
Jing WangDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Center of Minimally Invasive Treatment for Tumor, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200072, China.
Kai-Feng YangDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital Chongming Branch, Shanghai, 200072, China.
Guo-Chao SongDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital Chongming Branch, Shanghai, 200072, China.
Bo-Yang ZhouDepartment of Ultrasound, Zhongshan Hospital, Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Hui-Xiong XuDepartment of Ultrasound, Zhongshan Hospital, Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China. xuhuixiong@126.com.
Chong-Ke ZhaoDepartment of Ultrasound, Zhongshan Hospital, Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China. zhaochongke123@163.com.

Funding

Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities ZD-11-202151National Natural Science Foundation of China 82202174Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality 18441905500Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality 19DZ2251100Scientific Research and Development Fund of Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University 2022ZSQD07Shanghai Municipal Health Commission 2019LJ21Shanghai Municipal Health Commission SHSLCZDZK03502Shanghai Science and Technology Innovation Action Plan 21Y11911200
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo explore the feasibility of a 5G-based telerobotic ultrasound (US) system for providing qualified abdominal US services on a rural island.

methodsThis prospective study involved two medical centers (the tele-radiologist site's hospital and the patient site's hospital) separated by 72 km. Patients underwent 5G-based telerobotic US by tele-radiologists and conventional US by on-site radiologists from September 2020 to March 2021. The clinical feasibility and diagnostic performance of the 5G-based telerobotic abdominal US examination were assessed based on safety, duration, image quality, diagnostic findings, and questionnaires.

resultsA total of 401 patients (217 women and 184 men; mean age, 54.96 ± 15.43 years) were enrolled. A total of 90.1% of patients indicated no discomfort with the telerobotic US examination. For the examination duration, telerobotic US took longer than conventional US (12.54 ± 3.20 min vs. 7.23 ± 2.10 min, p = 0.001). For image quality scores, the results of the two methods were similar (4.54 ± 0.63 vs. 4.57 ± 0.61, p = 0.112). No significant differences were found between the two methods in measurements for the aorta, portal vein, gallbladder, kidney (longitudinal diameter), prostate, and uterus; however, telerobotic US underestimated the transverse diameter of the kidney (p < 0.05). A total of 504 positive results, including 31 different diseases, were detected. Among them, 455 cases were identified by the two methods; 17 cases were identified by telerobotic US only; and 32 cases were identified by conventional US only. There was good consistency in the diagnosis of 29 types of disease between the two methods (κ = 0.773-1.000). Furthermore, more than 90% of patients accepted the telerobotic US examination and agreed to pay additional fees in future.

conclusionThe 5G-based telerobotic US system can expand access to abdominal US services for patients in rural areas, thereby reducing health care disparities.

Indexed as

RoboticsAbdomenAdultAgedFemaleHumansKidneyMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesUltrasonography5G networkAbdominal examinationTelemedicineTeleroboticTele-ultrasound

Identifiers

PMID38102443

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.