SynthesisSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
What Ranges of Probe Pressure Are Applied During Ultrasound Examinations? A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative Compression Ultrasound via a Force-Area Digital Twin for Mechanistic Assessment of Venous Thrombosis.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- MRI and Ultrasound of the Thoracolumbar Fascia in the Setting of Degenerative Spinal Diseases.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Assessing gluteus medius volume with freehand 3DUS: validating a practical imaging tool for complex muscle morphology.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Impact of Force Scaling on Physician Fatigue in a Bilateral Tele-Ultrasound System.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
Abstract
The number of US exams has nearly doubled in the last ten years. Many researchers point out the probe pressure force influence on image quality and other aspects of examination. This review aims to identify the range of applied probe pressure during US examinations and gather information on probe compression force values during various US examinations (examination types, body regions, etc.).
methodsA systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted using IEEE Xplore, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed/MEDLINE. Studies with quantitative data on probe pressure during US by human operators or RUSs (robotic ultrasound systems) were included.
resultsFrom the 26 included studies, force ranges varied up to 34.5 N for abdominal exams. Robotic systems applied slightly higher maximum forces (34.5 N) than human operators (30 N). Most studies reported positive impacts of force monitoring on image quality and diagnostic precision, with no adverse effects on patient comfort.
conclusionsThe evidence collectively emphasizes the critical role of applied pressure in US. The nonuniformity of the reviewed studies does not allow for identifying a clearly defined range of probe pressure forces or force monitoring protocols. Integrating RUS and standardized pressure protocols could improve diagnostic consistency and accuracy.
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.