Brain-imaging techniques in educational technologies: A systematic literature review

Research and development often move forward based on buzzwords. New terms are coined to summarize new developments, often with several interpretations and without a formal definition. The term Smart Education has been coined to represent a move forward in technology-enhanced education, but what is behind it? Does it represent something essentially different from the educational technologies used before? In this paper, we do a systematic literature review to understand how this term is used, what the technologies behind it are, and what promises are made. We conclude that although the term is fuzzy, there are indeed several developments available today that can make educational technologies much more adapted to the learner and therefore underpin the learning in a smarter way.

Download Full-text

Value of imaging to guide interventional procedures in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a systematic literature review informing EULAR points to consider

RMD Open ◽

10.1136/rmdopen-2021-001864 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (3) ◽

pp. e001864

Author(s):

Philipp Bosch ◽

Francesco Carubbi ◽

Carlo Alberto Scirè ◽

Xenofon Baraliakos ◽

Louise Falzon ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Literature Review ◽

Systematic Literature Review ◽

Interventional Procedures ◽

Retrospective Studies ◽

Musculoskeletal Diseases ◽

Imaging Technique ◽

Imaging Techniques ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Specific Method ◽

Cross Sectional

ObjectivesTo summarise current data on the value of imaging to guide interventional procedures in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease (RMDs) informing an European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology taskforce.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted to retrieve prospective and retrospective studies published in English and comparing different (imaging) techniques, different settings and procedural protocols to guide interventions in patients with RMDs. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos databases were searched through October 2021. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool for randomised trials V.2 (ROB2), the RoB tool for Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions and the appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies.ResultsSixty-six studies were included (most with moderate/high RoB); 49 were randomised controlled trials, three prospective cohort studies and 14 retrospective studies. Fifty-one studies compared either one imaging technique with another imaging technique, or with palpation-guided interventions. Ultrasound (US) was most frequently studied (49/51), followed by fluoroscopy (10/51). Higher accuracy was found for US or fluoroscopy compared with palpation-guided interventions. Studies comparing different imaging techniques (12/51) did not endorse one specific method. Different settings/equipment for imaging-guided procedures (eg, automatic vs manual syringes) were investigated in three studies, reporting heterogeneous results. Fifteen studies compared different imaging-guided procedures (eg, intra-articular vs periarticular injections).ConclusionHigher accuracy of needle positioning at joints and periarticular structures was seen in most studies when using imaging (especially US) guidance as compared with palpation-guided interventions with the limitation of heterogeneity of data and considerable RoB.

Download Full-text