Feldman C A, Stevens D
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey Dental School, Newark.
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1990 Aug;18(4):213-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1990.tb00060.x.
The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of developing and using a voice recognition computerized charting system to record dental clinical examination data. More specifically, the study was designed to analyze the time and error differential between the traditional examiner/recorder method (ASSISTANT) and computerized voice recognition method (VOICE). DMFS examinations were performed twice on 20 patients using the traditional ASSISTANT and the VOICE charting system. A statistically significant difference was found when comparing the mean ASSISTANT time of 2.69 min to the VOICE time of 3.72 min (P less than 0.001). No statistically significant difference was found when comparing the mean ASSISTANT recording errors of 0.1 to VOICE recording errors of 0.6 (P = 0.059). 90% of the patients indicated they felt comfortable with the dentist talking to a computer and only 5% of the sample indicated they opposed VOICE. Results from this pilot study indicate that a charting system utilizing voice recognition technology could be considered a viable alternative to traditional examiner/recorder methods of clinical charting.
本研究的目的是确定开发和使用语音识别计算机化图表系统来记录牙科临床检查数据的可行性。更具体地说,该研究旨在分析传统检查者/记录者方法(ASSISTANT)和计算机化语音识别方法(VOICE)之间的时间差异和错误差异。使用传统的ASSISTANT和VOICE图表系统对20名患者进行了两次DMFS检查。将ASSISTANT的平均时间2.69分钟与VOICE的时间3.72分钟进行比较时,发现存在统计学上的显著差异(P小于0.001)。将ASSISTANT的平均记录错误0.1与VOICE的记录错误0.6进行比较时,未发现统计学上的显著差异(P = 0.059)。90%的患者表示他们对牙医与计算机交谈感到满意,只有5%的样本表示他们反对VOICE。这项初步研究的结果表明,利用语音识别技术的图表系统可被视为传统临床图表检查者/记录者方法的可行替代方案。