Performing diagnoses using virtual slides can take pathologists significantly longer than with glass slides, presenting a significant barrier to the use of virtual slides in routine practice. Given the benefits in pathology workflow efficiency and safety that virtual slides promise, it is important to understand reasons for this difference and identify opportunities for improvement. The effect of display resolution on time to diagnosis with virtual slides has not previously been explored. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of display resolution on time to diagnosis with virtual slides. Nine pathologists participated in a counterbalanced crossover study, viewing axillary lymph node slides on a microscope, a 23-in 2.3-megapixel single-screen display and a three-screen 11-megapixel display consisting of three 27-in displays. Time to diagnosis and time to first target were faster on the microscope than on the single and three-screen displays. There was no significant difference between the microscope and the three-screen display in time to first target, while the time taken on the single-screen display was significantly higher than that on the microscope. The results suggest that a digital pathology workstation with an increased number of pixels may make it easier to identify where cancer is located in the initial slide overview, enabling quick location of diagnostically relevant regions of interest. However, when a comprehensive, detailed search of a slide has to be made, increased resolution may not offer any additional benefit.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 February 2015.
All research outputs
#3,395,316
of 32,686,267 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#83
of 1,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,637
of 249,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,686,267 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,237 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 249,683 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
