ArticleAnnals of Saudi medicine
Application of digital slide scanning in external quality assessment program on intestinal parasites.
Article in Annals of Saudi medicine. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntestinal parasitic infections remain prevalent in Viet Nam. Therefore, ensuring quality assurance in intestinal parasite testing is crucial for screening laboratories. The challenges associated with liquid or glass slide samples necessitate the exploration of digital slide applications, which can offer numerous benefits to program suppliers and participants.
objectivesCompare the true and concordance rates of digital and glass slides for diagnosis.
designExperimental research design. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn total, 30 medical professionals from 30 hospitals participated in the trial. The sets of slides encompassed a range of densities, including negative and coinfected slides. Seven types of glass slides were selected for scanning and digital slide production.
main outcome measuresThe primary outcomes were true and concordance variables. Secondary outcomes included time sample sending and time completion. The digital slides were uploaded to a secure website for participant access while glass slides were sent individually by mail. Data collection involved participants analyzing specimens and reporting their results using a scoring method based on parasite detection and identification accuracy. SAMPLE SIZE: 210 glass and digital slide-reading results each.
resultsThe mean true rate between original and glass slides diagnosis was 97.6% (range 90.0%-100%), and it slightly increased to 98.1% (range 90.0%-100%) when using digital slides. The average concordance diagnosis rate between glass and digital slides was 99.5%. Importantly, there were no differences in the diagnostic results between glass and digital slides. The findings revealed that the use of digital slides reduced the total time required by approximately 1.1 days compared with that of glass slides.
conclusionAltogether, the application of digital slides in the external quality assessment program for intestinal parasites offers convenience for users through online platforms and saves operational time process. LIMITATIONS: The small sample size in this experimental study limited the statistical significance of the comparisons.
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.