Comparison of ultrasound contrast agent production by sonication and mechanical agitation.

Jovana Katrinka-Mavrak, Luca Bau, Jocelyne Rivera, Adam C Sedgwick, Eleanor Stride

Abstract readComparative Study

In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasonics sonochemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jovana Katrinka-MavrakInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Luca BauInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Jocelyne RiveraInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Adam C SedgwickDepartment of Chemistry, Kings College London, London, UK.

Eleanor StrideInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: eleanor.stride@eng.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microbubbles (MBs) are surfactant-coated gas vesicles used widely in ultrasound imaging and increasingly for therapy. MBs can be produced by a range of methods, most commonly involving sonication and/or agitation. This study aimed to compare MB production by agitation with a bead mill tissue homogeniser or with a dental amalgamator, and sonication. All methods produced MBs with a similar size distribution (10-90% inter-percentile range ∼0.44-1.6 μm), but both the MBs produced by the agitation methods had higher concentration than those produced by sonication (∼10

Indexed as

Contrast MediaMechanical PhenomenaMicrobubblesSonicationParticle SizePhospholipidsContrast MediaPhospholipidsContrast agentsMechanical agitationMicrobubble generationMicrobubblesSonicationTheranosticsUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID42114352

DOI10.1016/j.ultsonch.2026.107875

PMCPMC13191645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.