ArticlePOCUS journal2025
Comparison of Six Handheld Ultrasound Devices by Pediatric Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) Experts.
Article in POCUS journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of image quality in healthy dogs across 3 handheld ultrasound devices: Butterfly IQ+, Clarius C7HD3VET, and VScan Air.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2026Article
- Breast assessment using next generation handheld ultrasound device based on silicon chips: a pilot study in senology.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) use is increasing among pediatric clinicians, but lack of access to ultrasound devices is a major barrier. The availability of pocket-sized handheld ultrasound devices ("handhelds") has improved access. However, no head-to-head comparative studies of handhelds in children have been performed to guide purchasing decisions. Methods: This cross-sectional study compared six handhelds: Butterfly iQ+™ (Butterfly Network Inc.), Clarius® (Clarius Mobile Health™), Kosmos™(EchoNous), TE Air™ (Mindray®), Vscan Air™ SL (General Electric), and Lumify™ (Philips Healthcare). Eight pediatric POCUS experts acquired views showing the abdominal right upper quadrant (RUQ), cardiac apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung on a standardized pediatric model using each handheld. Experts rated each handheld by its image quality, ease of use, and their overall satisfaction. Results: Vscan Air™, Kosmos™, and Lumify™ were rated highest for ease of use, image quality, and overall satisfaction. Most experts recommended Vscan Air™ for purchase. The five most desirable characteristics of handhelds were image quality, ease of use, total costs, transducer size, and availability of different transducer types. All six handhelds had important advantages and disadvantages per experts, and no single device had all the desired characteristics. Conclusions: Pediatric POCUS experts rated Vscan Air™, Kosmos™, and Lumify™ highest for ease of use, image quality, and overall satisfaction. No device was clearly superior across all applications. Subjective characteristics, particularly probe ergonomics, may be a deciding factor when selecting handhelds in pediatrics. There is a need to develop handhelds specifically for use in pediatric populations.
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.