...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of gastroenterology >Evaluation of RAPID((R)) 5 Access software for examination of capsule endoscopies and reading of the capsule by an endoscopy nurse.
【24h】

Evaluation of RAPID((R)) 5 Access software for examination of capsule endoscopies and reading of the capsule by an endoscopy nurse.

机译:评估RAPID(R)5 Access软件,用于检查胶囊内窥镜检查和由内窥镜护士读取胶囊。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

BACKGROUND: Since capsule endoscopy (CE) is time consuming, one possible cost-effective strategy could be the use of an expert endoscopic assistant and available software to select images. Aims were to examine the clinical utility of RAPID((R)) 5 Access software and find the optimum setting mode for reading. We also evaluated whether a nurse could preview the CE video and detect significant lesions accurately. METHODS: The capsule images in 14 volunteers with known mucosal injury induced by low dose aspirin and in 30 patients who were known to have a variety of significant lesions were selected. Using three setting modes of RAPID((R)) 5 Access software, the detection rate and reading time for CE images by two well-trained physicians and one expert nurse were compared. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in detection rate among the three readers. The detection rate using Quickview RAPID((R)) 5 Access was significantly higher than that using RAPID((R)) Reader version 4.1. Comparison among the three modes of RAPID((R)) 5 Access showed that auto mode as well as displaying a single image at 12 fps was superior in the detection rate of denuded redness, while its reading time was longer compared to the other modes. Some significant lesions were not detected by using Quickview and Quadview modes. CONCLUSIONS: RAPID((R)) 5 Access improves diagnostic yield, reducing reading time; however, it is still unacceptable because of the diagnostic miss rate and may be useful as an ancillary reading tool. Developing further improved software and training expert assistants for reading capsule images are necessary.
机译:背景:由于胶囊内窥镜检查(CE)非常耗时,因此一种可能的成本有效策略可能是使用专家内窥镜助手和可用的软件来选择图像。目的是检查RAPID(R)5 Access软件的临床实用性,并找到最佳的读取设置模式。我们还评估了护士是否可以预览CE视频并准确检测出明显的病变。方法:选择14例低剂量阿司匹林引起的已知粘膜损伤志愿者的胶囊图像和30例已知有多种明显病变的患者的胶囊图像。使用RAPID(R)5 Access软件的三种设置模式,比较了两名受过良好训练的医师和一名专业护士对CE图像的检测率和读取时间。结果:三位读者的检出率无显着差异。使用Quickview RAPID(R)5 Access的检测率明显高于使用RAPID(R)Reader 4.1版本的检测率。 RAPID(R)5 Access的三种模式之间的比较表明,自动模式以及以12 fps的速度显示单幅图像在掩盖发红的检测率上具有优势,而其读取时间则比其他模式更长。使用Quickview和Quadview模式未检测到一些明显的病变。结论:RAPID(R)5 Access可提高诊断效率,减少阅读时间;然而,由于诊断漏检率,它仍然是不能接受的,并且可以用作辅助阅读工具。必须开发进一步改进的软件并培训专家助手以读取胶囊图像。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号