Hao Liu 1 , Salwa Akiki 2 , Nicholas J Barrowman 2 , Matthew Bromwich 3 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if any significant difference exists between endoscopic videos captured with a mobile adaptor and videos captured with a traditional tower. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective controlled blinded comparison of mobile endoscopic videos captured through 2 methods. METHODS: Thirty randomly selected patients underwent video endoscopy with both mobile and video tower recording methods. Sixty videos were edited into a series of 10-second clips. Thirteen otolaryngology staff and residents rated the video quality and provided a diagnosis for each video. RESULTS: We found no significant difference in the video quality ratings between mobile and tower videos (mean difference, -0.07; P < .37). Similarly, we found no significant difference in the observers' diagnostic accuracy (mean difference, 1.54%; P < .686). CONCLUSION: With adequate power, our study was unable to demonstrate a difference between mobile adapter videos and tower videos. Our findings suggest that mobile adapter videos may reasonably be used in lieu of tower videos in clinical practice. © American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2016.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if any significant difference exists between endoscopic videos captured with a mobile adaptor and videos captured with a traditional tower. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective controlled blinded comparison of mobile endoscopic videos captured through 2 methods. METHODS: Thirty randomly selected patients underwent video endoscopy with both mobile and video tower recording methods. Sixty videos were edited into a series of 10-second clips. Thirteen otolaryngology staff and residents rated the video quality and provided a diagnosis for each video. RESULTS: We found no significant difference in the video quality ratings between mobile and tower videos (mean difference, -0.07; P < .37). Similarly, we found no significant difference in the observers' diagnostic accuracy (mean difference, 1.54%; P < .686). CONCLUSION: With adequate power, our study was unable to demonstrate a difference between mobile adapter videos and tower videos. Our findings suggest that mobile adapter videos may reasonably be used in lieu of tower videos in clinical practice. © American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2016.
Entities: Species
Keywords:
ClearScope; cell phone video; endoscope; mHealth; mobile endoscopy; prospective
Mesh： See more »
Year: 2016
PMID： 27221571 DOI： 10.1177/0194599816650637
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ISSN： 0194-5998 Impact factor: 3.497