ArticleThe ultrasound journal2025
Performance evaluation of the TE Air wireless handheld ultrasound in cardiac applications: a prospective comparative study.
Article in The ultrasound journal, 2025. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of the TE Air wireless handheld ultrasound device in clinical cardiac imaging by comparing its performance with a high-end reference system.
methods161 patients for good-quality echocardiographic images were included in this prospective study. Each patient underwent sequential imaging using both the TE Air device (Mindray) and the high-end reference device (Philips EPIQ 7 C). Nine standard cardiac views were acquired. Image quality was assessed manually by two blinded echocardiographers and via proprietary AI software, respectively. The following key parameters were analyzed basing on the images: diastolic thickness of interventricular septal (IVSTd) and left ventricular posterior wall (LVPWTd), left ventricular end-diastolic (LVDd) and end-systolic diameter (LVDs), aortic diameter (AOD), left atrial anteroposterior diameter (LAD), Early (E) and late (A) diastolic velocities of the mitral valve in PW mode, as well as early diastolic velocities at the septal (EmS) and lateral (EmL) mitral annulus. Regional wall motion abnormality (RWMA), bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), atrial septal defect (ASD), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and valvular regurgitation degree were independently evaluated.
resultsThe TE Air demonstrated comparable image quality to the high-end reference system in both manual (64.95 ± 1.24 vs. 64.19 ± 1.63, P = 0.28) and AI-based evaluations (65.07 ± 1.02 vs. 63.80 ± 1.68, P = 0.06). Structural measurements showed high inter-device consistency, with ICCs of 0.77/0.74 for IVSTd/LVPWTd, 0.95/0.96 for LVDd/LVDs, and 0.82/0.98 for AOD/LAD (all P < 0.001). Functional parameters also demonstrated strong agreement (ICC: 0.91/0.92 for mitral E/A waves; 0.79/0.85 for EmS/EmL; P < 0.001). The TE Air had sensitivities of 81.8% for RWMA, 100% for ASD and BAV, and 93.5% for LVEF < 50%. Diagnostic agreement was excellent for LVEF (κ = 0.96, P < 0.001) and valvular regurgitation (weighted κ = 0.89, P < 0.001).
conclusionThe TE Air wireless handheld ultrasound device exhibits high agreement with high-end reference device in image quality, measurements, and clinical diagnoses, supporting its potential for widespread use in point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) clinical applications.
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.