Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38314019›Full record

ArticleUltrasound (Leeds, England)2024

A comparison of five point-of-care ultrasound devices for use in ophthalmology and facial aesthetics.

Kristen E Park, Preeya Mehta, Charlene Tran, Alomi O Parikh, Qifa Zhou, Sandy Zhang-Nunes

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound (Leeds, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kristen E ParkKeck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Preeya MehtaKeck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Charlene TranDepartment of Ophthalmology, USC Roski Eye Institute, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Alomi O ParikhDepartment of Ophthalmology, USC Roski Eye Institute, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Qifa ZhouDepartment of Ophthalmology, USC Roski Eye Institute, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Sandy Zhang-NunesDepartment of Ophthalmology, USC Roski Eye Institute, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5435-3424
Keck Hospital of USC · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Point-of-care ultrasound is becoming increasingly popular, and we sought to examine its role in evaluating ocular and periocular structures and facial vasculature. With the large number of point-of-care ultrasound devices available, it is difficult to determine which devices may be best suited for ophthalmic and facial aesthetic applications. This study compares five popular handheld point-of-care ultrasound devices to help guide clinicians in choosing the device best suited for their needs. Methods: We compared five point-of-care ultrasound devices: Butterfly IQ+ (Butterfly, Burlington, MA), L15 (Clarius Mobile Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), L20 (Clarius Mobile Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), Lumify (Philips, Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Vscan Air (GE, Boston, MA). Three ophthalmologists obtained the following views on three volunteers: eight arteries, four ocular and periocular structures and areas of filler injections. The image quality of each view was graded on a four-point Likert-type scale. In addition, graders filled out a survey. The data were analysed using analysis of variance tests with the significance level set to Results: In terms of overall image quality, the L20 received the highest mean rating, followed by the L15, Vscan Air, Butterfly IQ+ and the Lumify ( Conclusions: The L20 received the highest image quality rankings. While image quality is an important aspect of point-of-care ultrasound device selection, other factors such as cost, wireless capabilities, range of presets and battery life should also be considered.

Indexed as

Butterfly IQ+ClariusHandheld ultrasoundLumifypoint-of-care ultrasoundultrasound-guided filler injectionVscan Air

Identifiers

PMID38314019
PMCPMC10836224
OpenAlexW4367394659

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.