ArticleThe Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne2026
Comparison of image quality in healthy dogs across 3 handheld ultrasound devices: Butterfly IQ+, Clarius C7HD3VET, and VScan Air.
Article in The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne, 2026. 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.
- Optimizing transducer choice for the detection of alveolar-interstitial syndrome in dogs and cats: an evidence-based review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective animals and procedure: Handheld ultrasound devices (HUDs), a cost-effective alternative to cart-based ultrasound in humans, are not well studied in veterinary medicine. Twelve healthy dogs underwent point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) examinations [abdomen, pleural space and lung (PLUS), cardiovascular] using 3 HUDs. Twelve views were recorded (6 abdominal, 2 PLUS, and 4 cardiovascular) and retrospectively assessed by 2 expert reviewers (1 for thoracic and 1 for abdominal) who were blinded to the HUD used. Reviewers assessed overall image quality (Likert scale) and ability to answer clinically relevant POCUS binary choice questions. Results: Image quality varied among HUDs for lung sliding ( Conclusion and clinical relevance: Results of the current study suggest that, although image quality varied among HUDs, all 3 HUDs answered key abdominal, PLUS, and cardiac POCUS questions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41847500PMC12990006What 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.