ArticleJournal of medical systems2021
Structured Digital Self-Assessment of Patient Anamnesis Prior to Computed Tomography: Performance Evaluation and Added Value.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Before the examination: digital check-in].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Patient Adoption of Digital Use Cases in Family Medicine and a Nuanced Implementation Approach for Family Doctors: Quantitative Web-Based Survey Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Hidden Risks Unearthed: A Case of von Willebrand Disease Overlooked by Automated Preoperative Screening.World journal of plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Preserving Patient Stories: Bioethical and Legal Implications Related to the Shift from Traditional to Digital Anamnesis.Clinics and practice · 2024Review
- Digitized and structured informed patient consent before contrast-enhanced computed tomography: feasibility and benefits in clinical routine.Insights into imaging · 2022Article
- Obtaining patients' medical history using a digital device prior to consultation in primary care: study protocol for a usability and validity study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of a tablet-based, digitized structured self-assessment (DSSA) of patient anamnesis (PA) prior to computed tomography (CT). Of the 317 patients consecutively referred for CT, the majority (n = 294) was able to complete the tablet-based questionnaire, which consisted of 67 items covering social anamnesis, lifestyle factors (e.g., tobacco abuse), medical history (e.g., kidney diseases), current symptoms, and the usability of the system. Patients were able to mark unclear questions for a subsequent discussion with the radiologist. Critical issues for the CT examination were structured and automatically highlighted as "red flags" (RFs) in order to improve patient interaction. RFs and marked questions were highly prevalent (69.5% and 26%). Missing creatinine values (33.3%), kidney diseases (14.4%), thyroid diseases (10.6%), metformin (5.5%), claustrophobia (4.1%), allergic reactions to contrast agents (2.4%), and pathological TSH values (2.0%) were highlighted most frequently as RFs. Patient feedback regarding the comprehensibility of the questionnaire and the tablet usability was mainly positive (90.9%; 86.2%). With advanced age, however, patients provided more negative feedback for both (p = 0.007; p = 0.039). The time effort was less than 20 min for 85.1% of patients, and faster patients were significantly younger (p = 0.046). Overall, the DSSA of PA prior to CT shows a high success rate and is well accepted by most patients. RFs and marked questions were common and helped to focus patients' interactions and reporting towards decisive aspects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.