Gutenberg Open Science: Prospective comparison of handheld ultrasound devices from different manufacturers with respect to B-scan quality and clinical significance for various abdominal sonography questions

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://doi.org/10.25358/openscience-10083

Full metadata record

DC Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Merkel, Daniel	-
dc.contributor.author	Züllich, Tim Felix	-
dc.contributor.author	Schneider, Christoph	-
dc.contributor.author	Yousefzada, Masuod	-
dc.contributor.author	Beer, Diana	-
dc.contributor.author	Ludwig, Michael	-
dc.contributor.author	Weimer, Andreas	-
dc.contributor.author	Künzel, Julian	-
dc.contributor.author	Kloeckner, Roman	-
dc.contributor.author	Weimer, Johannes Matthias	-
dc.date.accessioned	2024-02-20T09:37:38Z	-
dc.date.available	2024-02-20T09:37:38Z	-
dc.date.issued	2023	-
dc.identifier.uri	https://openscience.ub.uni-mainz.de/handle/20.500.12030/10101	-
dc.description.abstract	Background: Handheld ultrasound (HHUS) devices have chiefly been deployed in emergency medicine, where they are considered a valid tool. The data situation is less clear in the case of internal questions in abdominal sonography. In our study, we investigate whether HHUS devices from different manufacturers differ in their B-scan quality, and whether any differences are relevant for the significance of an internal ultrasound examination. Method: The study incorporated eight HHUS devices from different manufacturers. Ultrasound videos of seven defined sonographic questions were recorded with all of the devices. The analogue recording of the same findings with a conventional high-end ultrasound (HEUS) device served as an evaluation criterion. Then, the corresponding findings were played side by side and evaluated by fourteen ultrasound experts using a point scale (5 points = very good; 1 point = insufficient). Results: The HHUS devices achieved relatively good results in terms of both the B-scan quality assessment and the ability to answer the clinical question, regardless of the manufacturer. One of the tested HHUS devices even achieved a significantly (p < 0.05) higher average points score in both the evaluation of B-scan quality and in the evaluation of clinical significance than the other devices. Regardless of the manufacturer, the HHUS devices performed best when determining the status/inferior vena cava volume and in the representation of ascites/free fluid. Conclusion: In various clinical abdominal sonography questions, HHUS systems can reliably reproduce findings, and are—while bearing their limitations in mind—an acceptable alternative to conventional HEUS systems. Irrespective of this, the present study demonstrated relevant differences in the B-scan quality of HHUS devices from different manufacturers.	en_GB
dc.language.iso	eng	de
dc.rights	CC BY	*
dc.rights.uri	https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/	*
dc.subject.ddc	610 Medizin	de_DE
dc.subject.ddc	610 Medical sciences	en_GB
dc.title	Prospective comparison of handheld ultrasound devices from different manufacturers with respect to B-scan quality and clinical significance for various abdominal sonography questions	en_GB
dc.type	Zeitschriftenaufsatz	de
dc.identifier.doi	http://doi.org/10.25358/openscience-10083	-
jgu.type.contenttype	Scientific article	de
jgu.type.dinitype	article	en_GB
jgu.type.version	Published version	de
jgu.type.resource	Text	de
jgu.organisation.department	FB 04 Medizin	de
jgu.organisation.number	2700	-
jgu.organisation.name	Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz	-
jgu.rights.accessrights	openAccess	-
jgu.journal.title	Diagnostics	de
jgu.journal.volume	13	de
jgu.journal.issue	24	de
jgu.pages.alternative	3622	de
jgu.publisher.year	2023	-
jgu.publisher.name	MDPI	de
jgu.publisher.place	Basel	de
jgu.publisher.issn	2075-4418	de
jgu.organisation.place	Mainz	-
jgu.subject.ddccode	610	de
jgu.publisher.doi	10.3390/diagnostics13243622	de
jgu.organisation.ror	https://ror.org/023b0x485	-
jgu.subject.dfg	Multidisciplinary	de
Appears in collections:	DFG-491381577-G

Files in This Item:

	File	Description	Size	Format
	prospective_comparison_of_han-20240214144126010.pdf		2.62 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Show simple item record