ArticleThe ultrasound journal2022
Comparison of four handheld point-of-care ultrasound devices by expert users.
Article in The ultrasound journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
56 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Review of Commercially Available Clinical CMUT-Based Systems for Use in Medical Ultrasound Imaging: Products, Applications, and Performance.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Contribution of point-of-care ultrasound in the prehospital management of patients with non-trauma acute dyspnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Phantom-based training of ultrasound-guided breast biopsy in medical education: a randomized controlled trial comparing handheld and high-end ultrasound.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Ultrasonography in disaster medicine: a narrative review.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Advances and Challenges of Capacitive Micromachined Ultrasonic Transducers in Medical Imaging.Micromachines · 2026Review
- Access to haemodynamic evaluation tools in middle-income countries: a survey of 1593 anaesthetists and intensivists from 39 nations.BJA open · 2026Article
- Comparison of image quality in healthy dogs across 3 handheld ultrasound devices: Butterfly IQ+, Clarius C7HD3VET, and VScan Air.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2026Article
- Breast assessment using next generation handheld ultrasound device based on silicon chips: a pilot study in senology.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Outpatient assessment of bronchopulmonary dysplasia using point of care lung ultrasound.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Automated artificial intelligence-enabled measurement of cardiac structures on point-of-care ultrasonography: a prospective multicenter validation study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Multi-site observational evaluation of Breast AI™-supported ultrasound risk stratification in breast cancer assessment pathways.PloS one · 2026Observational
- The Use of a Handheld Ultrasound Device to Measure Humeral Retrotorsion in Baseball and Softball Athletes: A Validation Study.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Integrating Intestinal Ultrasound to Clinical Trials in Patients With Crohn's Disease: Opportunities and Challenges.Inflammatory bowel diseases · 2025Review
- Elucidating ultrasound imaging of /ɹ/ tongue shapes using full-wave numerical simulationsa).The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2025Article
- ChatGPT-4-Driven Liver Ultrasound Radiomics Analysis: Diagnostic Value and Drawbacks in a Comparative Study.JMIR AI · 2025Article
- Best Practices for a Competency-based Curriculum in Critical Care Ultrasonography for Fellows.ATS scholar · 2025Article
- Quantitative Ultrasound Texture Analysis of Breast Tumors: A Comparison of a Cart-Based and a Wireless Ultrasound Scanner.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Comparison of Six Handheld Ultrasound Devices by Pediatric Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) Experts.POCUS journal · 2025Article
- Rehabilitation after bone marrow transplant compared with usual care to improve patient outcomes (REBOOT): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- AI for the hemodynamic assessment of critically ill and surgical patients: focus on clinical applications.Annals of intensive care · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoint-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is rapidly becoming ubiquitous across healthcare specialties. This is due to several factors including its portability, immediacy of results to guide clinical decision-making, and lack of radiation exposure to patients. The recent growth of handheld ultrasound devices has improved access to ultrasound for many clinicians. Few studies have directly compared different handheld ultrasound devices among themselves or to cart-based ultrasound machines. We conducted a prospective observational study comparing four common handheld ultrasound devices for ease of use, image quality, and overall satisfaction. Twenty-four POCUS experts utilized four handheld devices (Butterfly iQ+™ by Butterfly Network Inc., Kosmos™ by EchoNous, Vscan Air™ by General Electric, and Lumify™ by Philips Healthcare) to obtain three ultrasound views on the same standardized patients using high- and low-frequency probes.
resultsData were collected from 24 POCUS experts using all 4 handheld devices. No single ultrasound device was superior in all categories. For overall ease of use, the Vscan Air™ was rated highest, followed by the Lumify™. For overall image quality, Lumify™ was rated highest, followed by Kosmos™. The Lumify™ device was rated highest for overall satisfaction, while the Vscan Air™ was rated as the most likely to be purchased personally and carried in one's coat pocket. The top 5 characteristics of handheld ultrasound devices rated as being "very important" were image quality, ease of use, portability, total costs, and availability of different probes.
conclusionsIn a comparison of four common handheld ultrasound devices in the United States, no single handheld ultrasound device was perceived to have all desired characteristics. POCUS experts rated the Lumify™ highest for image quality and Vscan Air™ highest for ease of use. Overall satisfaction was highest with the Lumify™ device, while the most likely to be purchased as a pocket device was the Vscan Air™. Image quality was felt to be the most important characteristic in evaluating handheld ultrasound devices.
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.