Foot & ankle international · 2013
Reliability and validity of a mobile phone for radiographic assessment of ankle injuries: a randomized inter- and intraobserver agreement study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tennant Joshua N, Shankar Viswanathan, Dirschl Douglas R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Current mobile phone technology may allow orthopaedic surgeons to make clinical decisions using radiographs viewed on a small mobile device screen. The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of interpreting ankle fracture images viewed on a mobile device and a computer monitor, with a hypothesis that the agreement in clinical decision making between the mobile device and computer monitor would be high.
METHODS: A randomized interobserver and intraobserver reliability study was conducted in which 16 mortise and lateral ankle images representing a severity spectrum of malleolar ankle, plafond, and extra-articular tibial fractures were shown to volunteer orthopaedic surgeons on both an Apple fourth-generation iPod Touch and a 23-inch liquid crystal display (LCD) computer monitor. Participants answered a multiple-choice questionnaire for each image regarding diagnosis, severity, need for higher level imaging, need for acute inpatient versus outpatient management, and plan of treatment. Inter- and intraobserver reliability was assessed by kappa (κ), multirater kappa statistics, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
RESULTS: Ninety-three orthopaedic surgeon volunteers completed the study. Excellent intraobserver agreement (κ ≥ 0.8) was found for all variables measured, including diagnosis (median κ = 0.84), need for computed tomography scan (κ = 0.86), need for reduction (κ = 0.82), treatment setting (κ = 0.82), and treatment type (κ = 0.87). Interobserver agreement was consistent between the mobile device and computer screen. Interobserver agreement for the severity assessment had a slightly higher ICC for the mobile device compared with the computer monitor (ICC = 0.83 vs 0.79). Sixty-seven percent (62/93) said at the completion of the study they were "completely" or "very" comfortable using a mobile device as a primary viewing device for new emergency room, inpatient, or transfer request consults.
CONCLUSIONS: Strong reliability for radiographic assessment of ankle injuries existed between a 23-inch computer monitor and a handheld mobile device. Further study is warranted to validate the technology to apply to other anatomic locations and imaging modalities.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study.
METHODS: A randomized interobserver and intraobserver reliability study was conducted in which 16 mortise and lateral ankle images representing a severity spectrum of malleolar ankle, plafond, and extra-articular tibial fractures were shown to volunteer orthopaedic surgeons on both an Apple fourth-generation iPod Touch and a 23-inch liquid crystal display (LCD) computer monitor. Participants answered a multiple-choice questionnaire for each image regarding diagnosis, severity, need for higher level imaging, need for acute inpatient versus outpatient management, and plan of treatment. Inter- and intraobserver reliability was assessed by kappa (κ), multirater kappa statistics, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
RESULTS: Ninety-three orthopaedic surgeon volunteers completed the study. Excellent intraobserver agreement (κ ≥ 0.8) was found for all variables measured, including diagnosis (median κ = 0.84), need for computed tomography scan (κ = 0.86), need for reduction (κ = 0.82), treatment setting (κ = 0.82), and treatment type (κ = 0.87). Interobserver agreement was consistent between the mobile device and computer screen. Interobserver agreement for the severity assessment had a slightly higher ICC for the mobile device compared with the computer monitor (ICC = 0.83 vs 0.79). Sixty-seven percent (62/93) said at the completion of the study they were "completely" or "very" comfortable using a mobile device as a primary viewing device for new emergency room, inpatient, or transfer request consults.
CONCLUSIONS: Strong reliability for radiographic assessment of ankle injuries existed between a 23-inch computer monitor and a handheld mobile device. Further study is warranted to validate the technology to apply to other anatomic locations and imaging modalities.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study.