ArticleClinical hemorheology and microcirculation2024
Handheld ultrasound for portal vein evaluation in pediatric patients.
Article in Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess diagnostic capabilities of a modern handheld ultrasound device (HUD) for portal vein (PV) evaluation in pediatric patients and to verify if age, body mass index (BMI) and object depth correlate to imagequality.
methods45 patients (3.9 months- 17.9 years; 10.3 years±5.4) were examined using a HUD and cart-based high-end ultrasound system (HEUS). The intra-and extrahepatic PV was scanned using B-Mode and Color-coded Doppler sonography (CCDS). A five-point Likert scale was applied to evaluate image quality. Results were interpreted by two readers in consensus. Scores were compared between the scanners and correlated to age, BMI and skin-to-portal-vein-distance (SPVD). The influence on image quality and the difference between the two devices were analyzed using ordinal and Bayesian logistic regression models.
results≥4 points (mild or no limitations) were achieved by the HUD in 60% for B-Mode and 56% for CCDS. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between the image quality achieved by the HUD and the SPVD for B-Mode and CCDS. The effect of BMI and SPVD on having≥4 points differed significantly between the HUD and HEUS for B-Mode and for CCDS.
conclusionsSufficient to excellent image quality for portal vein assessment in pediatric patients was achieved by the HUD except for the most deep-lying structures. Compared to HEUS, diagnostic performance of the HUD is lower, based on a negative correlation with object depth.
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.