Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38596929›Full record

Trial reportThe western journal of emergency medicine2024

Diagnostic Accuracy of a Handheld Ultrasound vs a Cart-based Model: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Ryan C Gibbons, Daniel J Jaeger, Matthew Berger, Mark Magee, Claire Shaffer, Thomas G Costantino

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05196776 (Diagnostic Accuracy of a Portable, Handheld Point-of-Care Ultrasound Device vs a Traditional Cart-Based Model), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT05196776 nacompletednot on this map

Diagnostic Accuracy of a Portable, Handheld Point-of-Care Ultrasound Device vs a Traditional Cart-Based Model

TypeinterventionalSponsorTemple UniversityRan2021 to 2022Enrolled110ConditionsImage, BodyArmsPortable, handheld point-of-care ultrasound device, Cart-based point-of-care ultrasound device
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Undergraduate Medical Education: A National Survey.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Reliability of spectral Doppler in handheld ultrasonographic device.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025
    Article
  13. 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

6 authors.

Ryan C GibbonsLewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Department of Emergency Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Daniel J JaegerLewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Department of Emergency Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Matthew BergerCapital Health, Department of Emergency Medicine, Pennington, New Jersey.
Mark MageeLewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Department of Emergency Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Claire ShafferUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center Harrisburg, Department of Emergency Medicine, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Thomas G CostantinoLewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Department of Emergency Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Numerous studies have demonstrated the accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). Portable, handheld devices have expanded the clinical scope of POCUS at a fraction of the cost of traditional, cart-based models. There is a paucity of data assessing the diagnostic accuracy of portable devices. Our objective in this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of a portable device with a cart-based model. Methods: This was an institutional review board-approved, observational, prospective, randomized clinical trial (NCT05196776) of a convenience sample of adult patients who presented to a university-based health system. Patients who required a cardiac, lung, renal, aorta, or biliary POCUS were randomized to a portable device or to a cart-based model. We hypothesized that the cart-based model would have a 90% diagnostic accuracy vs 70% for the handheld device. To detect a 20% difference, the sample size was calculated to be 98, with 49 patients randomized to each arm. We used standard 2x2 tables to calculate test characteristics with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: A total of 110 patients were enrolled, with 56 patients randomized to the cart-based model and 54 to the handheld device. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the cart-based vs handheld were 77.8% (40-97.2) vs 92.9% (66.1-99.8), 91.5% (79.6-97.6) vs 92.3% (79.1-98.4%), and 89.3% (78.1-96) vs 92.5% (81.8-97.9), respectively. Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of a portable, handheld device is similar to that of a cart-based model.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care TestingResearch DesignAdultHumansProspective StudiesUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID38596929
PMCPMC11000544

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.