Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39272698›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Prospective Comparison of Nine Different Handheld Ultrasound (HHUS) Devices by Ultrasound Experts with Regard to B-Scan Quality, Device Handling and Software in Abdominal Sonography.

Daniel Merkel, Christian Lueders, Christoph Schneider, Masuod Yousefzada, Johannes Ruppert, Andreas Weimer, Moritz Herzog, Liv Annebritt Lorenz, Thomas Vieth, Holger Buggenhagen and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. The SIBUS-IN Fingerheld Ultrasound Machine.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

12 authors.

Daniel MerkelBIKUS-Brandenburg Institute for Clinical Ultrasound, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane (MHB), 16816 Neuruppin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9615-3017
Christian LuedersKlinik am See, Rehabilitation Center for Internal Medicine, 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.
Johannes RuppertDepartment of Medicine, Justus Liebig University Giessen, 35385 Giessen, Germany.
Andreas WeimerCenter of Orthopedics, Trauma Surgery, and Spinal Cord Injury, Heidelberg University Hospital Heidelberg, 69118 Heidelberg, Germany.
Moritz HerzogElse Kröner Fresenius Center for Digital Health, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0676-6926
Liv Annebritt LorenzDepartment of Radiooncology and Radiotherapy, Mainz University Hospital, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Thomas ViethRudolf Frey Learning Clinic, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg, University Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5942-747X
Holger BuggenhagenRudolf Frey Learning Clinic, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg, University Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Julia Weinmann-MenkeI. Department of Medicine, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg, University Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7344-8381
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

backgroundThe HHUS market is very complex due to a multitude of equipment variants and several different device manufacturers. Only a few studies have compared different HHUS devices under clinical conditions. We conducted a comprehensive prospective observer study with a direct comparison of nine different HHUS devices in terms of B-scan quality, device handling, and software features under abdominal imaging conditions.

methodsNine different HHUS devices (Butterfly iQ+, Clarius C3HD3, D5CL Microvue, Philips Lumify, SonoEye Chison, SonoSite iViz, Mindray TE Air, GE Vscan Air, and Youkey Q7) were used in a prospective setting by a total of 12 experienced examiners on the same subjects in each case and then assessed using a detailed questionnaire regarding B-scan quality, handling, and usability of the software. The evaluation was carried out using a point scale (5 points: very good; 1 point: insufficient).

resultsIn the overall evaluation, Vscan Air and SonoEye Chison achieved the best ratings. They achieved nominal ratings between "good" (4 points) and "very good" (5 points). Both devices differed significantly (

conclusionsThis is the first comprehensive study to directly compare different HHUS devices in a head-to-head manner. While the majority of the tested devices demonstrated satisfactory performance, notable discrepancies were observed between them. In particular, the B-scan quality exhibited considerable variation, which may have implications for the clinical application of HHUS. The findings of this study can assist in the selection of an appropriate HHUS device for specific applications, considering the clinical objectives and acknowledging the inherent limitations.

Indexed as

B-mode qualitycomparisonhandheld ultrasoundhandlingpocket devicePOCUSsoftware

Identifiers

PMID39272698
PMCPMC11393954

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.