ArticleJournal of ultrasound2025
Homemade, low-cost ultrasound phantoms for ultrasound-guided procedures: a survey-based comparative analysis.
Article in Journal of ultrasound, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Simulation-based training for fascial plane blocks: A scoping review mapped to the Kirkpatrick evaluation framework.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere is growing demand for ultrasound-based minimally invasive procedures, such as biopsy, aspiration, and tube drain. Homemade ultrasound (US) phantoms provide a simple, low-cost method for training young radiology residents. We aimed to compare and finally prescribe low-cost recipes of a US phantom model utilizing available ingredients, providing homogenous images and is stable in our hot, humid weather.
methodsFive recipes with different ingredients and concentrations were used during five workshops. All participants were asked to fill out a survey assessing the stability, visibility of targets, homogeneity, and persistence of air-filled tracks. Solid and cyst-like targets were used for training and were included in the survey.
resultsOur findings demonstrate that model 3 (1 cup of gelatin powder per 2 cups of cornflower) and model 5 (7 tablespoons of gelatin powder per 4 tablespoons of mucil) yielded the best phantoms in terms of stability and visibility of targets. Model 5 provided the best homogeneity (no layering), but it was the most expensive. Animal tissue within US phantoms was not suitable for recurrent use after 24 h.
conclusionsGelatin-based homemade US phantom models were useful in training young radiologists. The best mixture was gelatin and mucil (in a 7:4 ratio), followed by gelatin and cornflower (in a 1:2 ratio).
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.