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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Salazar, Antonio J., Useche, Nicolás, Granja, Manuel, Morillo, Aníbal J., Bermúdez, Sonia
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