Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38132206›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Prospective Comparison of Handheld Ultrasound Devices from Different Manufacturers with Respect to B-Scan Quality and Clinical Significance for Various Abdominal Sonography Questions.

Daniel Merkel, Tim Felix Züllich, Christoph Schneider, Masuod Yousefzada, Diana Beer, Michael Ludwig, Andreas Weimer, Julian Künzel, Roman Kloeckner, Johannes Matthias Weimer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

10 authors.

Daniel MerkelBIKUS-Brandenburg Institute for Clinical Ultrasound, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane (MHB), 16816 Neuruppin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9615-3017
Tim Felix ZüllichImmanuel Klinik Rüdersdorf, University Hospital of the Brandenburg Medical School, 15562 Rüdersdorf bei Berlin, Germany.
Christoph SchneiderImmanuel Klinik Rüdersdorf, University Hospital of the Brandenburg Medical School, 15562 Rüdersdorf bei Berlin, Germany.
Masuod YousefzadaImmanuel Klinik Rüdersdorf, University Hospital of the Brandenburg Medical School, 15562 Rüdersdorf bei Berlin, Germany.
Diana BeerImmanuel Klinik Rüdersdorf, University Hospital of the Brandenburg Medical School, 15562 Rüdersdorf bei Berlin, Germany.
Michael LudwigDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Hospital of the German Armed Forces Berlin, 10115 Berlin, Germany.
Andreas WeimerCenter of Orthopedics, Trauma Surgery and Spinal Cord Injury, Heidelberg University Hospital Heidelberg, 69118 Heidelberg, Germany.
Julian KünzelDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4402-0287
Roman KloecknerInstitute of Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein-Campus Lübeck, 23538 Lübeck, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5492-4792
Johannes Matthias WeimerRudolf Frey Learning Clinic, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3759-8176

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHandheld ultrasound (HHUS) devices have chiefly been deployed in emergency medicine, where they are considered a valid tool. The data situation is less clear in the case of internal questions in abdominal sonography. In our study, we investigate whether HHUS devices from different manufacturers differ in their B-scan quality, and whether any differences are relevant for the significance of an internal ultrasound examination.

methodThe study incorporated eight HHUS devices from different manufacturers. Ultrasound videos of seven defined sonographic questions were recorded with all of the devices. The analogue recording of the same findings with a conventional high-end ultrasound (HEUS) device served as an evaluation criterion. Then, the corresponding findings were played side by side and evaluated by fourteen ultrasound experts using a point scale (5 points = very good; 1 point = insufficient).

resultsThe HHUS devices achieved relatively good results in terms of both the B-scan quality assessment and the ability to answer the clinical question, regardless of the manufacturer. One of the tested HHUS devices even achieved a significantly (

conclusionIn various clinical abdominal sonography questions, HHUS systems can reliably reproduce findings, and are-while bearing their limitations in mind-an acceptable alternative to conventional HEUS systems. Irrespective of this, the present study demonstrated relevant differences in the B-scan quality of HHUS devices from different manufacturers.

Indexed as

B-scancomparison image qualityhandheld ultrasoundHEUSHHUShigh-end ultrasoundpocket ultrasoundqualitysonography

Identifiers

PMID38132206
PMCPMC10742722

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.