ArticlePloS one2019
Evaluation of a novel tomographic ultrasound device for abdominal examinations.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conventional ultrasound (US) is the first-line imaging method for abdominal pathologies, but its diagnostic accuracy is operator-dependent, and data storage is usually limited to two-dimensional images. A novel tomographic US system (Curefab CS, Munich, Germany) processes imaging data combined with three-dimensional spatial information using a magnetic field tracking. This enables standardized image presentation in axial planes and a review of the entire examination. The applicability and diagnostic performance of this tomographic US approach was analyzed in an abdominal setting using conventional US as reference. Tomographic US data were successfully compiled in all subjects of a training cohort (20 healthy volunteers) and in 50 patients with abdominal lesions. Image quality (35% and 79% for training and patient cohort respectively) and completeness of organ visualization (45% and 44%) were frequently impaired in tomographic US compared to conventional US. Conventional and tomographic US showed good agreement for measurement of organ sizes in the training cohort (right liver lobe and both kidneys with a median deviation of 5%). In the patient cohort, tomographic US identified 57 of 74 hepatic or renal lesions detected by conventional ultrasound (sensitivity 77%). In conclusion, this study illustrates the diagnostic potential of abdominal tomographic US, but current significant limitations of the tomographic ultrasound device demand further technical improvements before this and comparable approaches can be implemented in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.