ArticlePloS one2024
Imaging performance of portable and conventional ultrasound imaging technologies for ophthalmic applications.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review of Commercially Available Clinical CMUT-Based Systems for Use in Medical Ultrasound Imaging: Products, Applications, and Performance.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- A Novel Slit Lamp-Based System for 3D Ultrasound of the Eye.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2026Article
- Localization of a contraceptive implant using a silicon chip-based handheld ultrasound device.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Role of artificial intelligence in advancing immunology.Immunologic research · 2025Review
- Comparing New Smartphone-Connected Handheld Ultrasound Device vs. Traditional Ultrasound in Vitreo-Retinal Disease Diagnosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the imaging capabilities of Butterfly iQ with conventional ophthalmic (piezoelectric) ultrasound (COU) for ophthalmic imaging.
methodsCustom phantom molds were designed and imaged with Butterfly iQ and COU to compare spatial resolution capabilities. To evaluate the clinical imaging performance of Butterfly iQ and COU, a survey containing pathological conditions from human subjects, imaged with both Butterfly iQ and COU probes, was given to three retina specialists and graded on image detail, resolution, quality, and diagnostic confidence on a ten-point Likert scale. Kruskal-Wallis analysis was performed for survey responses.
resultsButterfly iQ and COU had comparable capabilities for imaging small axial and lateral phantom features (down to 0.1 mm) of high and low acoustic reflectivity. One of three retina specialists demonstrated a statistically significant preference for COU related to resolution, detail, and diagnostic confidence, but the remaining graders showed no significant preference for Butterfly iQ or COU across all sample images presented.
conclusionThe emergence of portable ultrasound probes offers an affordable alternative to COU technologies with comparable qualitative imaging resolution down to 0.1 mm. These findings suggest the value to further study the use of portable ultrasound systems and their utility in routine eye care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.