Cargando…
Ruling Out Brain CT Contraindications prior to Intravenous Thrombolysis: Diagnostic Equivalence between a Primary Interpretation Workstation and a Mobile Tablet Computer
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the equivalence of brain CT interpretations performed using a diagnostic workstation and a mobile tablet computer, in a telestroke service. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ethics committee of our institution approved this retrospective study. A factorial d...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5700470/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29250111 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/6869145 |
_version_ | 1783281124600971264 |
---|---|
author | Salazar, Antonio J. Useche, Nicolás Granja, Manuel Morillo, Aníbal J. Bermúdez, Sonia |
author_facet | Salazar, Antonio J. Useche, Nicolás Granja, Manuel Morillo, Aníbal J. Bermúdez, Sonia |
author_sort | Salazar, Antonio J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the equivalence of brain CT interpretations performed using a diagnostic workstation and a mobile tablet computer, in a telestroke service. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ethics committee of our institution approved this retrospective study. A factorial design with 1452 interpretations was used. The assessed variables were the type of stroke classification, the presence of contraindications to the tPA administration, the presence of a hyperdense intracranial artery sign (HMCA), and the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) score. These variables were evaluated to determine the effect that the reading system had on their magnitudes. RESULTS: The achieved distribution of observed lesions using both the reading systems was not statistically different. The differences between the two reading systems to claim equivalence were 1.6% for hemorrhagic lesions, 4.5% for cases without lesion, and 5.2 for overall ischemic lesion. Equivalence was achieved at 2.1% for ASPECTS ≤ 6, 6.5% for the presence of imaging contraindication to the tPA administration, and 7.2% for the presence of HMCA. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance for detecting acute stroke is likely equivalent whether a tablet computer or a diagnostic workstation is used or not. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5700470 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Hindawi |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57004702017-12-17 Ruling Out Brain CT Contraindications prior to Intravenous Thrombolysis: Diagnostic Equivalence between a Primary Interpretation Workstation and a Mobile Tablet Computer Salazar, Antonio J. Useche, Nicolás Granja, Manuel Morillo, Aníbal J. Bermúdez, Sonia Int J Telemed Appl Research Article OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the equivalence of brain CT interpretations performed using a diagnostic workstation and a mobile tablet computer, in a telestroke service. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ethics committee of our institution approved this retrospective study. A factorial design with 1452 interpretations was used. The assessed variables were the type of stroke classification, the presence of contraindications to the tPA administration, the presence of a hyperdense intracranial artery sign (HMCA), and the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) score. These variables were evaluated to determine the effect that the reading system had on their magnitudes. RESULTS: The achieved distribution of observed lesions using both the reading systems was not statistically different. The differences between the two reading systems to claim equivalence were 1.6% for hemorrhagic lesions, 4.5% for cases without lesion, and 5.2 for overall ischemic lesion. Equivalence was achieved at 2.1% for ASPECTS ≤ 6, 6.5% for the presence of imaging contraindication to the tPA administration, and 7.2% for the presence of HMCA. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance for detecting acute stroke is likely equivalent whether a tablet computer or a diagnostic workstation is used or not. Hindawi 2017 2017-11-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5700470/ /pubmed/29250111 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/6869145 Text en Copyright © 2017 Antonio J. Salazar et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Salazar, Antonio J. Useche, Nicolás Granja, Manuel Morillo, Aníbal J. Bermúdez, Sonia Ruling Out Brain CT Contraindications prior to Intravenous Thrombolysis: Diagnostic Equivalence between a Primary Interpretation Workstation and a Mobile Tablet Computer |
title | Ruling Out Brain CT Contraindications prior to Intravenous Thrombolysis: Diagnostic Equivalence between a Primary Interpretation Workstation and a Mobile Tablet Computer |
title_full | Ruling Out Brain CT Contraindications prior to Intravenous Thrombolysis: Diagnostic Equivalence between a Primary Interpretation Workstation and a Mobile Tablet Computer |
title_fullStr | Ruling Out Brain CT Contraindications prior to Intravenous Thrombolysis: Diagnostic Equivalence between a Primary Interpretation Workstation and a Mobile Tablet Computer |
title_full_unstemmed | Ruling Out Brain CT Contraindications prior to Intravenous Thrombolysis: Diagnostic Equivalence between a Primary Interpretation Workstation and a Mobile Tablet Computer |
title_short | Ruling Out Brain CT Contraindications prior to Intravenous Thrombolysis: Diagnostic Equivalence between a Primary Interpretation Workstation and a Mobile Tablet Computer |
title_sort | ruling out brain ct contraindications prior to intravenous thrombolysis: diagnostic equivalence between a primary interpretation workstation and a mobile tablet computer |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5700470/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29250111 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/6869145 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT salazarantonioj rulingoutbrainctcontraindicationspriortointravenousthrombolysisdiagnosticequivalencebetweenaprimaryinterpretationworkstationandamobiletabletcomputer AT usechenicolas rulingoutbrainctcontraindicationspriortointravenousthrombolysisdiagnosticequivalencebetweenaprimaryinterpretationworkstationandamobiletabletcomputer AT granjamanuel rulingoutbrainctcontraindicationspriortointravenousthrombolysisdiagnosticequivalencebetweenaprimaryinterpretationworkstationandamobiletabletcomputer AT morilloanibalj rulingoutbrainctcontraindicationspriortointravenousthrombolysisdiagnosticequivalencebetweenaprimaryinterpretationworkstationandamobiletabletcomputer AT bermudezsonia rulingoutbrainctcontraindicationspriortointravenousthrombolysisdiagnosticequivalencebetweenaprimaryinterpretationworkstationandamobiletabletcomputer |