ArticleJournal of ultrasound2026
Wireless versus cart-based ultrasound in musculoskeletal and superficial soft-tissue imaging: a prospective blinded cross-over study.
Article in Journal of ultrasound, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimWireless ultrasound probes are increasingly used in point-of-care settings, but their performance in musculoskeletal and superficial soft-tissue imaging remains incompletely defined. This study compared image quality and clinical-pragmatic performance of a wireless ultrasound probe with a high-end cart-based ultrasound system.
methodsThis prospective blinded cross-over study included 41 musculoskeletal or superficial soft-tissue anatomical regions examined in routine clinical practice. Each region was assessed with both the Mindray Resona I9 Elite Edition cart-based system and the Mindray TE-Air e5M wireless probe. Device order was randomized. Images were acquired by one experienced operator, anonymized, coded, and reviewed offline by an experienced reviewer blinded to device type. Image quality, anatomical margin definition, tissue contrast, speckle noise, diagnostic confidence, interpretability, diagnosis possibility, pathological finding detection, clinical decision sufficiency, and the need for further imaging were assessed.
resultsThe cart-based system showed superior image quality. Median global image quality was 5 versus 3, anatomical margin definition 5 versus 3 and tissue contrast 5 versus 4. Diagnostic confidence was higher with the cart-based system, 97.95 ± 5.32 versus 69.10 ± 16.05. Clinical-pragmatic endpoints showed a less pronounced reduction: examination interpretability was 97.6% versus 90.2%, diagnosis was considered possible in 73.2% versus 61.0%, and images were sufficient for clinical decision-making in 70.7% versus 58.5%.
conclusionsThe wireless probe provided lower image quality and confidence but retained clinically useful performance in selected cases. It should be considered complementary rather than a substitute for high-end cart-based ultrasound.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42867629What 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.