Quantification of the magnification and distortion effects of a pediatric flexible video-bronchoscope

Background: Flexible video bronchoscopes, in particular the Olympus BF Type 3C160, are commonly used in pediatric respiratory medicine. There is no data on the magnification and distortion effects of these bronchoscopes yet important clinical decisions are made from the images. The aim of this study was to systematically describe the magnification and distortion of flexible bronchoscope images taken at various distances from the object. Methods: Using images of known objects and processing these by digital video and computer programs both magnification and distortion scales were derived. Results: Magnification changes as a linear function between 100 mm ( x 1) and 10 mm ( x 9.55) and then as an exponential function between 10 mm and 3 mm ( x 40) from the object. Magnification depends on the axis of orientation of the object to the optic axis or geometrical axis of the bronchoscope. Magnification also varies across the field of view with the central magnification being 39% greater than at the periphery of the field of view at 15 mm from the object. However, in the paediatric situation the diameter of the orifices is usually less than 10 mm and thus this limits the exposure to these peripheral limits of magnification reduction. Intraclass correlations for measurements and repeatability studies between instruments are very high, r = 0.96. Distortion occurs as both barrel and geometric types but both types are heterogeneous across the field of view. Distortion of geometric type ranges up to 30% at 3 mm from the object but may be as low as 5% depending on the position of the object in relation to the optic axis. Conclusion: We conclude that the optimal working distance range is between 40 and 10 mm from the object. However the clinician should be cognisant of both variations in magnification and distortion in clinical judgements.

A bibliographic snapshot of the telemedicine citation literature

There appear to have been no previous literature-based or literature-oriented studies in telemedicine which have analysed raw citation data. Using a simple search strategy, the Web of Science was analysed up to the end of 2005 to give a snapshot of the field, and to identify matters which would need to be considered in larger scale bibliometric studies. Of the 3673 telemedicine documents retrieved, 2213 (60%) had been cited. Of 56,875 citation records, 32,460 unique citation formats were found. The most-cited paper, and the paper with the greatest annual citation rate, was Perednia and Allen's review article in JAMA, 1995. The two specialist telemedicine journals published 40% of all papers retrieved. In the general literature (i.e. excluding the two specialist journals) there were 1556 citations to their 1374 'citable' articles, apportioned in the ratio 76:24, almost exactly in accordance with the distribution of the articles themselves. However, each of the two specialist telemedicine journals cited itself in a proportion higher than its share of original articles, with an 'excess' of self-citations of 14% in the journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, and 19% in the Telemedicine journal and E-Health. Despite certain technical difficulties, there is considerable scope for bibliometric research in telemedicine.