Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36884093›Full record

ArticleThe ultrasound journal2023

Utility of hand-held ultrasound for image acquisition and interpretation by trained Kenyan providers.

Grace Wanjiku, Lindsay Dreizler, Shirley Wu, Janette Baird, Benjamin Wachira

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The ultrasound journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Grace WanjikuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 55 Claverick Street Suite 100, Providence, RI, 02903, USA. grace_wanjiku@brown.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3564-0860
Lindsay DreizlerThe Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 222 Richmond Street, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.
Shirley WuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 55 Claverick Street Suite 100, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.
Janette BairdDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 55 Claverick Street Suite 100, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.
Benjamin WachiraAccident and Emergency Department, The Aga Khan University, 3Rd Parklands Avenue, Nairobi, Kenya.
Brown University · USAga Khan University Nairobi · KE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoint-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) plays a prominent role in the timely recognition and management of multiple medical, surgical, and obstetric conditions. A POCUS training program for primary healthcare providers in rural Kenya was developed in 2013. A significant challenge to this program is the acquisition of reasonably priced ultrasound machines with adequate image quality and the ability to transmit images for remote review. The goal of this study is to compare the utility of a smartphone-connected, hand-held ultrasound with a traditional ultrasound device for image acquisition and interpretation by trained healthcare providers in Kenya.

methodsThis study took place during a routine re-training and testing session for healthcare providers who had already received POCUS training. The testing session involved a locally validated Observed Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE) that assessed trainees' skills in performing the Extended Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (E-FAST) and focused obstetric exams. Each trainee performed the OSCE twice, once using a smartphone-connected hand-held ultrasound and once using their notebook ultrasound model.

resultsFive trainees obtained a total of 120 images and were scored on image quality and interpretation. Overall E-FAST imaging quality scores were significantly higher for the notebook ultrasound compared to the hand-held ultrasound but there was no significant difference in image interpretation. Overall focused obstetric image quality and image interpretation scores were the same for both ultrasound systems. When separated into individual E-FAST and focused obstetric views, there were no statistically significant differences in the image quality or image interpretation scores between the two ultrasound systems. Images obtained using the hand-held ultrasound were uploaded to the associated cloud storage using a local 3G-cell phone network. Upload times were 2-3 min.

conclusionAmong POCUS trainees in rural Kenya, the hand-held ultrasound was found to be non-inferior to the traditional notebook ultrasound for focused obstetric image quality, focused obstetric image interpretation, and E-FAST image interpretation. However, hand-held ultrasound use was found to be inferior for E-FAST image quality. These differences were not observed when evaluating each E-FAST and focused obstetric views separately. The hand-held ultrasound allowed for rapid image transmission for remote review.

Identifiers

PMID36884093
PMCPMC9995612
OpenAlexW4323535376

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.