ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Technical Assessment of Ultrasonic Cerebral Tomosphygmography and New Scientific Evaluation of Its Clinical Interest for the Diagnosis of Electrohypersensitivity and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pilot questionnaire survey shows the lack of diagnostic criteria for electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a viewpoint.mHealth · 2025Review
- A qualitative approach to experiential knowledge identified in focus groups aimed at co-designing a provocation test in the study of electrohypersensitivity.Annals of medicine · 2022Article
- The Critical Importance of Molecular Biomarkers and Imaging in the Study of Electrohypersensitivity. A Scientific Consensus International Report.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ultrasonic cerebral tomosphygmography (UCTS), also known as "encephaloscan", is an ultrasound-based pulsatile echoencephalography for both functional and anatomical brain imaging investigations. Compared to classical imaging, UCTS makes it possible to locate precisely the spontaneous brain tissue pulsations that occur naturally in temporal lobes. Scientific publications have recently validated the scientific interest of UCTS technique but clinical use and industrial development of this ancient brain imaging technique has been stopped notably in France, not for scientific or technical reasons but due to a lack of financing support. UCTS should be fundamentally distinguished from transcranial Doppler ultrasonography (TDU), which, although it also uses pulsed ultrasounds, aims at studying the velocity of blood flow (hemodynamics) in the cerebral arteries by using Doppler effect, especially in the middle cerebral artery of both hemispheres. Instead, UCTS has the technical advantage of measuring and locating spontaneous brain tissue pulsations in temporal lobes. Recent scientific work has shown the possibility to make an objective diagnosis of electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) by using UCTS, in conjunction with TDU investigation and the detection of several biomarkers in the peripheral blood and urine of the patients. In this paper, we independently confirm the clinical interest of using UCTS for the diagnosis of EHS and MCS. Moreover, it has been shown that repetitive use of UCTS in EHS and/or MCS patients can contribute to the objective assessment of their therapeutic follow-up. Since classical CT scan and MRI are usually not contributive for the diagnosis and are poorly tolerated by these patients, UCTS should therefore be considered as one of the best imaging technique to be used for the diagnosis of these new disorders and the follow-up of patients.
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.