ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Non-Destructive Testing Technology for Shallow Subsurface Defects in Rails: A Review with Focus on Ultrasonic Surface Wave Methods.
Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
With increasing rail traffic intensity, reliable detection of shallow subsurface rail damage is essential for operational safety. This critical narrative review evaluates non-destructive testing technologies relevant to defects whose active crack front or principal scattering zone lies within the upper approximately 0.5-10 mm of the rail, while treating the 10-15 mm range as a transition to deeper-defect verification. Magnetic flux leakage, magnetic particle inspection, visual inspection, eddy current testing, and conventional ultrasonic testing are first examined as screening or confirmatory comparators. The review then focuses on four ultrasonic surface-wave excitation routes-contact piezoelectric, active air-coupled, electromagnetic acoustic, and laser ultrasonic-and distinguishes source-specific laboratory capability from demonstrated field evidence. Because the cited studies use different defect geometries, rail conditions, sensor configurations, speeds, and decision criteria, their numerical values are reported as source-conditioned evidence rather than as a normalized ranking. An engineering decision matrix links defect depth and size, inspection speed, surface condition, and noise environment to a recommended screening-confirmation workflow. The synthesis identifies contact piezoelectric UT/PAUT as the most mature quantitative confirmation route, while EMAT, air-coupled UT, and laser UT retain method-specific advantages but require stronger natural-defect and in-service validation.
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.