Search

For successful health technology innovation and implementation it is key to, in an early phase, understand the problem and whether a proposed innovation is the best way to solve the problem. This review performed an initial exploration of published tools that support innovators in academic research and early stage development with awareness and guidance along the end-to-end process of development, evaluation and implementation of health technology innovations. Tools were identified from scientific literature as well as in grey literature by non-systematic searches in public research databases and search engines, and based on expert referral. A total number of 14 tools were included. Tools were classified as either readiness level tool (n = 6), questionnaire/checklist tool (n=5) or guidance tool (n = 3). A qualitative analysis of the tools identified 5 key domains, 5 innovation phases and 3 implementation principles. All tools were mapped for (partially) addressing the identified domains, phases, and principles. The present review provides awareness of available tools and of important aspects of health technology innovation and implementation (vs. nontechnological or non-health related technological innovations). Considerations for tool selection include for example the purpose of use (awareness or guidance) and the type of health technology innovation. Considerations for novel tool development include the specific challenges in academic and early stage development settings, the translation of implementation to early innovation phases, and the importance of multi-disciplinary strategic decisionmaking. A remaining attention point for future studies is the validation and effectiveness of (self-assessment) tools, especially in the context of support preferences and available support alternatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: User‐independent quantitative measures of cutaneous allergic reactions can help the physicians manage and evaluate the treatment of cutaneous allergic reactions. In this paper, we present and validate a method to quantify the elevation, volume and area of cutaneous allergic reactions to red tattoos. Methods: The skin surface of allergic tattoo reactions was imaged using an optical 3D scanner. The in‐house developed analysis tool measured the elevation, volume and area of the lesions, compared to a reference surface. This reference surface was created by 3D interpolation of the skin after manual removal of the lesions. The error of the interpolation tool was validated using a digital arm model. The error of our optical scanner was determined using a 3D printed lesion phantom. The clinical feasibility of the method was tested in 83 lesions in 17 patients. Results: The method showed clear potential to assess skin elevation, volume change and area of an allergic reaction. The validation measurements revealed that the error due to interpolation increases for larger interpolation areas and largely determined the error in the clinical measurements. Lesions with a width ≥4 mm and an elevation ≥0.4 mm could be measured with an error below 26%. Patient measurements showed that lesions up to 600 mm2 could be measured accurately, and elevation and volume changes could be assessed at follow‐up. Conclusion: Quantification of cutaneous allergic reactions to red tattoos using 3D optical scanning is feasible and may objectify skin elevation and improve management of the allergic reaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: User-independent quantitative measures of cutaneous allergic reactions can help the physicians manage and evaluate the treatment of cutaneous allergic reactions. In this paper, we present and validate a method to quantify the elevation, volume and area of cutaneous allergic reactions to red tattoos., Methods: The skin surface of allergic tattoo reactions was imaged using an optical 3D scanner. The in-house developed analysis tool measured the elevation, volume and area of the lesions, compared to a reference surface. This reference surface was created by 3D interpolation of the skin after manual removal of the lesions. The error of the interpolation tool was validated using a digital arm model. The error of our optical scanner was determined using a 3D printed lesion phantom. The clinical feasibility of the method was tested in 83 lesions in 17 patients., Results: The method showed clear potential to assess skin elevation, volume change and area of an allergic reaction. The validation measurements revealed that the error due to interpolation increases for larger interpolation areas and largely determined the error in the clinical measurements. Lesions with a width ≥4 mm and an elevation ≥0.4 mm could be measured with an error below 26%. Patient measurements showed that lesions up to 600 mm 2 could be measured accurately, and elevation and volume changes could be assessed at follow-up., Conclusion: Quantification of cutaneous allergic reactions to red tattoos using 3D optical scanning is feasible and may objectify skin elevation and improve management of the allergic reaction., (© 2019 The Authors. Skin Research and Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Each ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI sequence for breast cancer generates thousands of images in a 4D stack that need to be reviewed by a radiologist., Purpose: To assess whether color intensity projections (CIP) effectively summarizes-using only the time of arrival (ToA) and amount of signal enhancement (AoE) of the contrast agent-the thousands of ultrafast images., Study Type: Retrospective cohort clinical trial., Subjects: The study included 89 patients who had been scanned with an MRI beast protocol, of which 26 had breast cancer and 63 did not., Field Strength/sequence: The 115-second ultrafast DCE sequence at 3T acquired 19 consecutive frames every 4.26 seconds with 152 slices per frame, yielding a 4D stack with 2888 2D images for each of water and fat., Assessment: For each slice of the water 4D stack a single CIP image was generated that encoded the ToA in the hue (red, orange, yellow, green, cyan, blue) and AoE in the brightness. Each of three experienced radiologists assigned a Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS) score for each patient, first using only the CIP images, and subsequently using both CIP and the full 4D stack., Statistical Tests: The one-sided Fisher's exact test was used to determine statistical significance of both the sensitivity and specificity between the CIP alone and the CIP plus 4D stack., Results: All malignancies were detected using only CIP by at least one of the radiologists. The CIP and CIP+4D sensitivities for reader 1 were 96% and 96% (P = 0.57), specificities were 59% and 65% (P = 0.29). For reader 2, the values were 96% and 100% (P = 0.51) with 62% and 71% (P = 0.17). For reader 3 the values were 92% and 96% (P = 0.50) with 51% and 62% (P = 0.07)., Data Conclusion: With a 95% sensitivity, CIP provides an effective summary of ultrafast DCE images of breast cancer., Level of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1391-1399., (© 2018 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.)