Hands-free zoom and pan technology improves the accuracy of remote electrocardiogram interpretation using Google Glass

Stetler, Jeffrey; Resendes, Erica; Martinez‐Parachini, Jose Roberto; Patel, Krishna S.; Amsavelu, Suwetha; Tarar, Muhammad Nauman J; Christakopoulos, Georgios E.; Rangan, Bavana V.; Roesle, Michele; Abdullah, Shuaib; Obel, Owen; Grodin, Jerrold; Banerjee, Subhash; Brilakis, Emmanouil S.

doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.11.144

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The patient-focused studies aimed to help individuals with motor impairments (8/21, 38%) [ 6 - 13 ], visual impairments (5/21, 24%) [ 14 - 18 ], developmental and psychiatric disorders (2/21, 9%) [ 19 , 20 ], weight management concerns (3/21, 14%) [ 21 - 23 ], allergies (1/21, 5%) [ 26 ], or other health concerns leading them to track specific physiological metrics (2/21, 10%) [ 24 , 25 ]. The clinician-focused studies analyzed Google Glass use in student training (9/30, 30%) [ 35 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 52 ], disaster relief (4/30, 13%) [ 27 - 30 ], diagnostics (2/30, 7%) [ 32 , 50 ], nursing (1/30, 3%) [ 33 ], autopsy and postmortem examination (1/30, 3%) [ 53 ], wound care (1/30, 3%) [ 54 ], behavioral sciences (1/30, 3%) [ 31 ], and various medical specialties, including cardiology (3/30, 10%) [ 43 - 45 ], radiology (3/30, 10%) [ 39 , 42 , 47 ], neurology (1/30, 3%) [ 34 ], anesthesiology (1/30, 3%) [ 36 ], pulmonology (1/30, 3%) [ 51 ], toxicology (1/30, 3%) [ 55 ], and dermatology (1/30, 3%) [ 56 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In total, 40 studies were conducted in the United States [ 6 - 9 , 13 - 18 , 20 - 24 , 27 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 35 , 37 - 41 , 43 - 52 , 54 - 57 ], three in Germany [ 25 , 26 , 53 ], two in United Kingdom [ 10 , 11 ], China [ 34 , 36 ], and one each in Australia [ 33 ], Switzerland [ 42 ], Mexico [ 19 ], Netherlands [ 12 ], Norway [ 30 ], and Italy [ 28 ]. Less than half of the included studies (19/51, 37%) were conducted in a laboratory setting [ 6 - 9 , 12 , 14 , 16 - 19 , 21 - 24 , 27 , 31 , 33 , 42 , 50 ], 13 (25%) in a hospital setting [ 32 , 34 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 51 , 53 - 56 ], seven (14%) in a classroom or clinical student training setting [ 35 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 47 , 48 , 52 ], three in patient residences (6%) [ 13 , 15 ,…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 13 studies that did report participant age information, seven enrolled young adults (average age or age range ≤35 years) [ 6 , 18 , 22 - 25 , 53 ], three enrolled adults (average age or age range >36 and <60 years) [ 9 , 16 , 17 ], two enrolled older adults (average age or age range ≥60 years) [ 10 , 12 ] and one study reported an age range of 46-70 years [ 11 ]. Sample size ranged from 1-106 participants, with a median of 12 and a mean of 22 participants per study; 29 enrolled <30 [ 6 , 7 , 9 - 14 , 16 - 21 , 23 - 27 , 30 , 38 - 40 , 43 - 45 , 48 , 53 , 54 ] and 10 had ≥30 participants [ 22 , 31 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 41 , 47 , 49 , 52 , 56 ]. Some of the studies (12/51, 23.5%) did not report the number of participants [ 8 , 15 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 42 , 46 , 50 , 51 , 55 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Using Google Glass in Nonsurgical Medical Settings: Systematic Review

Dougherty¹,

Badawy²

2017

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWearable technologies provide users hands-free access to computer functions and are becoming increasingly popular on both the consumer market and in various industries. The medical industry has pioneered research and implementation of head-mounted wearable devices, such as Google Glass. Most of this research has focused on surgical interventions; however, other medical fields have begun to explore the potential of this technology to support both patients and clinicians.ObjectiveOur aim was to systematically evaluate the feasibility, usability, and acceptability of using Google Glass in nonsurgical medical settings and to determine the benefits, limitations, and future directions of its application.MethodsThis review covers literature published between January 2013 and May 2017. Searches included PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, INSPEC (Ebsco), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), IEEE Explore, Web of Science, Scopus, and Compendex. The search strategy sought all articles on Google Glass. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed full-text articles, and extracted data from articles that met all predefined criteria. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or consultation by the senior author. Included studies were original research articles that evaluated the feasibility, usability, or acceptability of Google Glass in nonsurgical medical settings. The preferred reporting results of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for reporting of results.ResultsOf the 852 records examined, 51 met all predefined criteria, including patient-centered (n=21) and clinician-centered studies (n=30). Patient-centered studies explored the utility of Google Glass in supporting patients with motor impairments (n=8), visual impairments (n=5), developmental and psychiatric disorders (n=2), weight management concerns (n=3), allergies (n=1), or other health concerns (n=2). Clinician-centered studies explored the utility of Google Glass in student training (n=9), disaster relief (n=4), diagnostics (n=2), nursing (n=1), autopsy and postmortem examination (n=1), wound care (n=1), behavioral sciences (n=1), and various medical subspecialties, including, cardiology (n=3), radiology (n=3), neurology (n=1), anesthesiology (n=1), pulmonology (n=1), toxicology (n=1), and dermatology (n=1). Most of the studies were conducted in the United States (40/51, 78%), did not report specific age information for participants (38/51, 75%), had sample size <30 participants (29/51, 57%), and were pilot or feasibility studies (31/51, 61%). Most patient-centered studies (19/21, 90%) demonstrated feasibility with high satisfaction and acceptability among participants, despite a few technical challenges with the device. A number of clinician-centered studies (11/30, 37%) reported low to moderate satisfaction among participants, with the most promising results being in the area of student training. Studies varied in sample size, approach for implementation of Google Glass, and outco...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using Google Glass in Nonsurgical Medical Settings: Systematic Review

Dougherty¹,

Badawy²

2017

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They feature some functionalities similar to those offered by smartphones and tablets by running self-contained mobile apps. Despite recent communications and studies related to the use of these glasses in various medical fields [21-26], their contribution to resuscitation in emergency medicine has not yet been investigated. Their potential to wirelessly display and interact in real time conditions with data generated by the actions performed in a specific environment could be of great interest for assisting caregivers in resuscitation rooms, while freeing users’ hands and allowing them to “see the scene through the screen”.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adherence to AHA Guidelines When Adapted for Augmented Reality Glasses for Assisted Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Siebert¹,

Ehrler²,

Gervaix³

et al. 2017

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are nowadays recognized as the world’s most authoritative resuscitation guidelines. Adherence to these guidelines optimizes the management of critically ill patients and increases their chances of survival after cardiac arrest. Despite their availability, suboptimal quality of CPR is still common. Currently, the median hospital survival rate after pediatric in-hospital cardiac arrest is 36%, whereas it falls below 10% for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Among emerging information technologies and devices able to support caregivers during resuscitation and increase adherence to AHA guidelines, augmented reality (AR) glasses have not yet been assessed. In order to assess their potential, we adapted AHA Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) guidelines for AR glasses.ObjectiveThe study aimed to determine whether adapting AHA guidelines for AR glasses increased adherence by reducing deviation and time to initiation of critical life-saving maneuvers during pediatric CPR when compared with the use of PALS pocket reference cards.MethodsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial with two parallel groups of voluntary pediatric residents, comparing AR glasses to PALS pocket reference cards during a simulation-based pediatric cardiac arrest scenario—pulseless ventricular tachycardia (pVT). The primary outcome was the elapsed time in seconds in each allocation group, from onset of pVT to the first defibrillation attempt. Secondary outcomes were time elapsed to (1) initiation of chest compression, (2) subsequent defibrillation attempts, and (3) administration of drugs, as well as the time intervals between defibrillation attempts and drug doses, shock doses, and number of shocks. All these outcomes were assessed for deviation from AHA guidelines.ResultsTwenty residents were randomized into 2 groups. Time to first defibrillation attempt (mean: 146 s) and adherence to AHA guidelines in terms of time to other critical resuscitation endpoints and drug dose delivery were not improved using AR glasses. However, errors and deviations were significantly reduced in terms of defibrillation doses when compared with the use of the PALS pocket reference cards. In a total of 40 defibrillation attempts, residents not wearing AR glasses used wrong doses in 65% (26/40) of cases, including 21 shock overdoses >100 J, for a cumulative defibrillation dose of 18.7 Joules per kg. These errors were reduced by 53% (21/40, P<.001) and cumulative defibrillation dose by 37% (5.14/14, P=.001) with AR glasses.ConclusionsAR glasses did not decrease time to first defibrillation attempt and other critical resuscitation endpoints when compared with PALS pocket cards. However, they improved adherence and performance among residents in terms of administering the defibrillation doses set by AHA.

show abstract

“…From fitness trackers to wireless medical devices, mobile and digital health technology presents physicians with a plethora of potentially promising and disruptive technologies. 1 We evaluated one such device, Google Glass (Google, Mountain View, CA), [2][3][4] a wearable computer with an integrated display screen and a voice-activated camera for transmitting and interpreting transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) videos.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%