Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35796842›Full record

ArticleThe ultrasound journal2022

Comparison of four handheld point-of-care ultrasound devices by expert users.

Minh-Phuong T Le, Lara Voigt, Robert Nathanson, Anna M Maw, Gordon Johnson, Ria Dancel, Benji Mathews, Alvaro Moreira, Harald Sauthoff, Christopher Gelabert and 16 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
13.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.

Minh-Phuong T Le *Division of General & Hospital Medicine, Joe R. and Terry Lozano Long School of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, MC 7885, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA. lemt@uthscsa.edu.
Lara Voigt *Division of General & Hospital Medicine, Joe R. and Terry Lozano Long School of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, MC 7885, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA. yopp@uthscsa.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2490-0383
Robert NathansonDivision of General & Hospital Medicine, Joe R. and Terry Lozano Long School of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, MC 7885, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA.
Anna M MawDivision of Hospital Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.
Gordon JohnsonDivision of Hospital Medicine, Legacy Healthcare System, Portland, OR, USA.
Ria DancelDivision of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Benji MathewsDepartment of Hospital Medicine, HealthPartners Medical Group, Regions Hospital, St. Paul, MN, USA.
Alvaro MoreiraDivision of Neonatology, University of Texas Health San Antonio, Joe R. and Terry Lozano Long School of Medicine, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Harald SauthoffDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Christopher GelabertDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Division of Ultrasound, Joe R. and Terry Lozano Long School of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Linda M KurianDivision of Hospital Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra Northwell, New Hyde Park, NY, USA.
Jenna DumovichDivision of General & Hospital Medicine, Joe R. and Terry Lozano Long School of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, MC 7885, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA.
Kevin C ProudDivision of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care Medicine, Joe R. and Terry Lozano Long School of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Jessica Solis-McCarthyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Division of Ultrasound, Joe R. and Terry Lozano Long School of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Carolina CandottiDivision of Hospital Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Christopher DaytonDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Division of Ultrasound, Joe R. and Terry Lozano Long School of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Alexander ArenaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Division of Ultrasound, Joe R. and Terry Lozano Long School of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Brandon BoeschDivision of Hospital Medicine, Alameda Health System-Highland Hospital, Oakland, CA, USA.
Saul FloresDivision of Critical Care and Cardiology, Texas Children's Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Mark T FosterDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Division of Ultrasound, Joe R. and Terry Lozano Long School of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Nicholas VillalobosDepartment of Pulmonology and Critical Care Medicine, San Antonio Military Medical Center, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Tanping WongDivision of Hospital Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Gabriel Ortiz-JaimesDivision of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Michael MaderResearch and Development Service, South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Craig SissonDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Division of Ultrasound, Joe R. and Terry Lozano Long School of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Nilam J SoniDivision of General & Hospital Medicine, Joe R. and Terry Lozano Long School of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, MC 7885, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA.
The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · USAlameda Health System · USBaylor College of Medicine · USBrooke Army Medical Center · USCornell University · USHofstra University · USLegacy Health · USMayo Clinic · USRegions Hospital · USSouth Texas Veterans Health Care System · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of Colorado Hospital · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USVA NY Harbor Healthcare System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Handheld ultrasoundPOCUSPoint-of-care ultrasoundPortable ultrasound diagnostic imagingProcedures

Identifiers

PMID35796842
PMCPMC9263020
OpenAlexW4284701592

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.