ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Energy consumption of ultrasound devices during routine applications and opportunities to save energy and costs.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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.
- Energy sustainability of breast ultrasound: comparison of automated and handheld ultrasound systems.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Article
- Smart, automated junctional tourniquets leveraging AI-driven ultrasound guidance.Scientific reports · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the real energy consumption, including the idle and off-mode status of ultrasound devices and their multiparametric modes during daily examinations. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this study, the electrical power consumption from 9 ultrasound devices and 18 probes used in routine medical practice was measured for a full 24 h over a week. The equipment was located in the neurology and cardiology departments of a large hospital, as well as in a radiology medical practice. The devices were manufactured by different companies and varied in age.
resultsShort-term measurements recorded the electrical power consumption during patient scans, revealing real power values for the applied modalities, which ranged between a mean of 182.5 W and 415.5 W, depending on the device and application field. Long-term measurements, reflecting the typical working days of these departments, showed total annual electrical power consumption ranging from 344.6 kWh to 1122.6 kWh. Energy-saving possibilities are discussed, highlighting that reducing idle-mode durations can significantly lower electrical costs by saving energy of 3-16%.
conclusionThis study is the first to document in detail the power consumption of different ultrasound devices and modalities, including idle and off-mode statuses, during routine use. KEY POINTS: Question Which procedures during ultrasound examinations have high power consumption and what is the idle- and off-mode consumption of different devices. Findings Energy consumption can vary greatly depending on the application. Savings potentials of 3-16% could easily be realized in the daily routine. Clinical relevance Exact knowledge of power consumption of a device during off-, idle-, and some often-used active-modes (all are easy and fast to perform) can help to optimize examination scenarios and minimize power consumption and thus energy costs.
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.