ArticleUltrasonography (Seoul, Korea)2026
Energy sustainability of breast ultrasound: comparison of automated and handheld ultrasound systems.
Article in Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea), 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluated and compared energy consumption between automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) and handheld ultrasound (HHUS) systems during routine whole-breast ultrasound (US) examinations in clinical practice.
methodsThis prospective observational study included 320 consecutive patients who underwent breast US between July and October 2025. Four systems were used: two ABUS systems, designated ABUS-1 and ABUS-2, and two HHUS systems, designated HHUS-1 and HHUS-2. HHUS examinations were performed by four radiologists. Energy consumption was measured using a real-time power meter synchronized with system log files. Power consumption was analyzed in active, idle, and off modes. Average power in each mode, examination duration, and energy consumption during active scanning were calculated. Data were analyzed using the independent-samples t-test or Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction.
resultsIn idle mode, ABUS systems consumed significantly less average power than HHUS systems (P<0.001). In off mode, both ABUS systems consumed 0 W, whereas HHUS systems continued to consume residual power. During active scanning, ABUS systems had shorter examination durations than HHUS systems, with ABUS-1 showing the shortest duration. Energy consumption during active scanning was lowest for ABUS-1, which consumed approximately 47% less energy than HHUS-1 (P<0.001). Across all radiologists, both ABUS systems consistently showed lower energy consumption than HHUS-1.
conclusionCompared with HHUS, ABUS showed lower power use in idle and off modes and similar or lower energy consumption during active scanning. When clinically appropriate, preferential use of ABUS may improve energy sustainability while preserving clinical utility.
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.