ArticleUltrasound (Leeds, England)2024
LogMyScan: A pilot evaluation study of a mobile phone-based ultrasound logbook application.
Article in Ultrasound (Leeds, England), 2024. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: We developed a mobile phone logbook application called LogMyScan. The study objectives were to evaluate a number of domains as per the technology acceptance model. Methods: A prospective pilot cohort study was conducted using a version of LogMyScan and reported according to Statement on Reporting of Evaluation studies in Health Informatics. Prospective participants were directed to a website which provided information and links. Participants were recruited via email distribution lists and social media. A task list was provided, which included entering simulated scan data and navigating the application, prior to completing a questionnaire. Questions were aligned to technology acceptance model domains, and Cronbach's alpha was calculated to assess reliability. Results: There were 49 participants and 7 were unable to complete the image upload and editing step. Levels of agreement for usability, educational and governance/security aspects were generally good. The desirability of existing and proposed features was high for images and video clip handling, feedback and reflection and less for motivational notifications and benchmarking. Comments identified some limitations and issues on the Android platform. Cronbach's alpha demonstrated good to excellent reliability: 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.91) for usability, educational and governance/security and 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.91) for desirability of existing and proposed features. Conclusion: There was generally high perceived ease of use, usefulness, attitude towards use and behavioural intention to use LogMyScan. Further research is needed to evaluate LogMyScan for future iterations, allowing recruitment of a larger number of participants and evaluating user expectations prior to using, and at timed intervals after using.
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.