ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparing New Smartphone-Connected Handheld Ultrasound Device vs. Traditional Ultrasound in Vitreo-Retinal Disease Diagnosis.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Ocular emergencies account for 1.5-3% of emergency department (ED) visits and require urgent diagnosis to prevent serious complications. Ultrasonography is a crucial, non-invasive diagnostic tool for these conditions but traditionally lacks portability and integration with modern electronic smart devices. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy and performance of a new handheld ultrasound device in comparison to a conventional cart-based sonographic machine in patients attending to the ED for vitreo-retinal diseases. (2) Methods: three specialists in ophthalmology, with at least 4-year experience in vitreo-retinal diseases and eye ultrasound, evaluated images of 50 eyes with both portable and traditional ultrasound probes. Each specialist made the diagnosis based on the images captured with both probes and then rated their overall image quality and confidence of diagnosis with a five-point Likert scale. The concordance of diagnosis between the two probes was evaluated. (3) Results: The sample comprised 42 patients. Twenty (40%) healthy eyes and thirty eyes with the following vitreo-retinal interface conditions were examined: 12 retinal detachment (24%), 8 vitreous hemorrhage (16%), and 10 posterior vitreous detachment (20%). The overall accuracy of the two devices appeared to be comparable (70.7% vs. 69.3%). The Butterfly iQ+ probe showed similar sensitivity in retinal detachment diagnosis (91.7% vs. 94.4% of the Accutome B-scan Pro), while it showed poor performance in diagnosing posterior vitreous detachment (sensitivity = 27.2%); (4) Conclusions: The Butterfly iQ+ device demonstrated high sensitivity in the diagnosis of retinal detachment. Significant adjustments are still needed to improve the resolution of the vitreous body.
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.