Abbonarsi

The effect of display size on ultrasound interpretation - 09/12/21

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.10.050 
Mark A. Magee, MD a, , Arthur K. Au, MD b, Lillian Flashner c, Kelly Goodsell, MD b, Jamie Huot c, Rishi M. Kalwani, MD PhD d, Resa E. Lewiss, MD b, Zachary W. Risler, MD MPH e
a Department of Emergency Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America 
b Department of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America 
c Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America 
d Department of Emergency Medicine, Jefferson Health Northeast, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America 
e Department of Emergency Medicine, Nazareth Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America 

Corresponding author at: Jones Hall 10th Floor, Room 1001, 1316 West Ontario Street, Philadelphia, PA 19140, United States of America.Jones Hall 10th Floor, Room 1001, 1316 West Ontario StreetPhiladelphiaPA19140United States of America

Abstract

Objectives

Ultrasound (US) is an essential component of emergency department patient care. US machines have become smaller and more affordable. Handheld ultrasound (HUS) machines are even more portable and easy to use at the patient's bedside. However, miniaturization may come with consequences. The ability to accurately interpret ultrasound on a smaller screen is unknown. This pilot study aims to assess how screen size affects the ability of emergency medicine clinicians to accurately interpret US videos.

Methods

This pilot study enrolled a prospective convenience sample of emergency medicine physicians. Participants completed a survey and were randomized to interpret US videos starting with either a phone-sized screen or a laptop-sized screen, switching to the other device at the halfway point. 50 unique US videos depicting right upper quadrant (RUQ) views of the Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) examination were chosen for inclusion in the study. There were 25 US videos per device. All of the images were previously obtained on a cart-based machine (Mindray M9) and preselected by the study authors. Participants answered “Yes” or “No” in response to whether they identified free fluid. The time that each participant took to interpret each video was also recorded. Following the assessment, participants completed a post-interpretation survey. The goal of the pilot was to determine the accuracy of image interpretation on a small screen as compared to a laptop-sized screen. Statistical analyses were performed using MATLAB (The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA). Nonparametric statistical tests were utilized to compare subgroups, with a Wilcoxon signed rank test used for paired data and a Wilcoxon rank sum test for unpaired data.

Results

52 emergency medicine physicians were enrolled in the study. The median accuracy of US interpretation for phone versus laptop image screen was 88.0% and 87.6% (p = 0.67). The mean time to interpret with phone versus laptop screen was 293 and 290 s (p = 0.66).

Conclusions

The study found no statistically significant difference in the accuracy of US interpretation nor time spent interpreting when the pre-selected RUQ videos generated on a cart-based ultrasound machine were reviewed on a phone-sized versus a laptop-sized screen. This pilot study suggests that the accuracy of US interpretation may not be dependent upon the size of the screen utilized.

Il testo completo di questo articolo è disponibile in PDF.

Keywords : Point-of-care ultrasound, Beside ultrasound, Handheld ultrasound, FAST, Trauma, Emergency medicine


Mappa


© 2021  Elsevier Inc. Tutti i diritti riservati.
Aggiungere alla mia biblioteca Togliere dalla mia biblioteca Stampare
Esportazione

    Citazioni Export

  • File

  • Contenuto

Vol 51

P. 285-289 - Gennaio 2022 Ritorno al numero
Articolo precedente Articolo precedente
  • Improved hospital mortality rates after the implementation of emergency department sepsis teams
  • Erin L. Simon, Katarina Truss, Courtney M. Smalley, Kevin Mo, Caroline Mangira, Jessica Krizo, Baruch S. Fertel
| Articolo seguente Articolo seguente
  • A missed opportunity in the ED: Palliative care consult delays during inpatient admission
  • Leah Bright, Korie Zink, Eili Klein, Rebecca Wright, Gabe Kelen

Benvenuto su EM|consulte, il riferimento dei professionisti della salute.
L'accesso al testo integrale di questo articolo richiede un abbonamento.

Già abbonato a @@106933@@ rivista ?

Il mio account


Dichiarazione CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM è registrato presso la CNIL, dichiarazione n. 1286925.

Ai sensi della legge n. 78-17 del 6 gennaio 1978 sull'informatica, sui file e sulle libertà, Lei puo' esercitare i diritti di opposizione (art.26 della legge), di accesso (art.34 a 38 Legge), e di rettifica (art.36 della legge) per i dati che La riguardano. Lei puo' cosi chiedere che siano rettificati, compeltati, chiariti, aggiornati o cancellati i suoi dati personali inesati, incompleti, equivoci, obsoleti o la cui raccolta o di uso o di conservazione sono vietati.
Le informazioni relative ai visitatori del nostro sito, compresa la loro identità, sono confidenziali.
Il responsabile del sito si impegna sull'onore a rispettare le condizioni legali di confidenzialità applicabili in Francia e a non divulgare tali informazioni a terzi.


Tutto il contenuto di questo sito: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, i suoi licenziatari e contributori. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. Inclusi diritti per estrazione di testo e di dati, addestramento dell’intelligenza artificiale, e tecnologie simili. Per tutto il contenuto ‘open access’ sono applicati i termini della licenza Creative Commons.