Comparison of 6 handheld ultrasound devices by point-of-care ultrasound experts: a cross-sectional study.

IF 3.4 Q2 Medicine Ultrasound Journal Pub Date : 2024-10-02 DOI:10.1186/s13089-024-00392-3
Ariadna Perez-Sanchez, Gordon Johnson, Neysan Pucks, Riya N Soni, Terry J S Lund, Anthony J Andrade, Minh-Phuong T Le, Jessica Solis-McCarthy, Tanping Wong, Arsal Ashraf, Andre D Kumar, Gisela I Banauch, James R Verner, Amik Sodhi, Meghan K Thomas, Charles LoPresti, Hannah Schmitz, Abhilash Koratala, John Hunninghake, Erik Manninen, Carolina Candotti, Taro Minami, Benji K Mathews, Ghassan Bandak, Harald Sauthoff, Henry Mayo-Malasky, Joel Cho, Nick Villalobos, Kevin C Proud, Brandon Boesch, Federico Fenton Portillo, Kreegan Reierson, Manpreet Malik, Firas Abbas, Tim Johnson, Elizabeth K Haro, Michael J Mader, Paul Mayo, Ricardo Franco-Sadud, Nilam J Soni
{"title":"Comparison of 6 handheld ultrasound devices by point-of-care ultrasound experts: a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Ariadna Perez-Sanchez, Gordon Johnson, Neysan Pucks, Riya N Soni, Terry J S Lund, Anthony J Andrade, Minh-Phuong T Le, Jessica Solis-McCarthy, Tanping Wong, Arsal Ashraf, Andre D Kumar, Gisela I Banauch, James R Verner, Amik Sodhi, Meghan K Thomas, Charles LoPresti, Hannah Schmitz, Abhilash Koratala, John Hunninghake, Erik Manninen, Carolina Candotti, Taro Minami, Benji K Mathews, Ghassan Bandak, Harald Sauthoff, Henry Mayo-Malasky, Joel Cho, Nick Villalobos, Kevin C Proud, Brandon Boesch, Federico Fenton Portillo, Kreegan Reierson, Manpreet Malik, Firas Abbas, Tim Johnson, Elizabeth K Haro, Michael J Mader, Paul Mayo, Ricardo Franco-Sadud, Nilam J Soni","doi":"10.1186/s13089-024-00392-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has emerged as an essential bedside tool for clinicians, but lack of access to ultrasound equipment has been a top barrier to POCUS use. Recently, several handheld ultrasound devices (\"handhelds\") have become available, and clinicians are seeking data to guide purchasing decisions. Few comparative studies of different handhelds have been done. We conducted a cross-sectional study comparing 6 handhelds readily available in the United States (Butterfly iQ + <sup>™</sup> by Butterfly Network Inc.; Clarius<sup>™</sup> by Clarius Mobile Health; Kosmos<sup>™</sup> by EchoNous; TE Air<sup>™</sup> by Mindray; Vscan Air<sup>™</sup> SL and CL by General Electric; and Lumify<sup>™</sup> by Philips Healthcare). A multi-specialty group of physician POCUS experts (n = 35) acquired three standard ultrasound views (abdominal right upper quadrant, cardiac apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views) in random order on the same standardized patients and rated the image quality. Afterward, a final survey of the overall ease of use, image quality, and satisfaction of each handheld was completed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-five POCUS experts specializing in internal medicine/hospital medicine, critical care, emergency medicine, and nephrology acquired and rated right upper quadrant, apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views with 6 different handhelds. For image quality, the highest-rated handhelds were Vscan Air<sup>™</sup> for the right upper quadrant view, Mindray TE Air<sup>™</sup> for the cardiac apical 4-chamber view, and Lumify<sup>™</sup> for superficial views of the neck and lung. Overall satisfaction with image quality was highest with Vscan Air<sup>™</sup>, Lumify<sup>™</sup>, and Mindray, while overall satisfaction with ease of use was highest with Vscan Air<sup>™</sup>. The 5 most desirable characteristics of handhelds were image quality, ease of use, portability, probe size, and battery life. Ultimately, all 6 handhelds had notable advantages and disadvantages, with no single device having all desired qualities or features.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The overall satisfaction with image quality was rated highest with Vscan Air<sup>™</sup>, Lumify<sup>™</sup>, and Mindray TE Air<sup>™</sup>when acquiring right upper quadrant, apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views. No single handheld was perceived to be superior in image quality for all views. Vscan Air<sup>™</sup> was rated highest for overall ease of use and was the most preferred handheld for purchase by POCUS experts.</p>","PeriodicalId":36911,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11447175/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-024-00392-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has emerged as an essential bedside tool for clinicians, but lack of access to ultrasound equipment has been a top barrier to POCUS use. Recently, several handheld ultrasound devices ("handhelds") have become available, and clinicians are seeking data to guide purchasing decisions. Few comparative studies of different handhelds have been done. We conducted a cross-sectional study comparing 6 handhelds readily available in the United States (Butterfly iQ +  by Butterfly Network Inc.; Clarius by Clarius Mobile Health; Kosmos by EchoNous; TE Air by Mindray; Vscan Air SL and CL by General Electric; and Lumify by Philips Healthcare). A multi-specialty group of physician POCUS experts (n = 35) acquired three standard ultrasound views (abdominal right upper quadrant, cardiac apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views) in random order on the same standardized patients and rated the image quality. Afterward, a final survey of the overall ease of use, image quality, and satisfaction of each handheld was completed.

Results: Thirty-five POCUS experts specializing in internal medicine/hospital medicine, critical care, emergency medicine, and nephrology acquired and rated right upper quadrant, apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views with 6 different handhelds. For image quality, the highest-rated handhelds were Vscan Air for the right upper quadrant view, Mindray TE Air for the cardiac apical 4-chamber view, and Lumify for superficial views of the neck and lung. Overall satisfaction with image quality was highest with Vscan Air, Lumify, and Mindray, while overall satisfaction with ease of use was highest with Vscan Air. The 5 most desirable characteristics of handhelds were image quality, ease of use, portability, probe size, and battery life. Ultimately, all 6 handhelds had notable advantages and disadvantages, with no single device having all desired qualities or features.

Conclusions: The overall satisfaction with image quality was rated highest with Vscan Air, Lumify, and Mindray TE Airwhen acquiring right upper quadrant, apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung views. No single handheld was perceived to be superior in image quality for all views. Vscan Air was rated highest for overall ease of use and was the most preferred handheld for purchase by POCUS experts.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
护理点超声专家对 6 种手持式超声设备的比较:一项横断面研究。
背景:床旁超声(POCUS)已成为临床医生必不可少的床旁工具,但无法获得超声设备一直是使用 POCUS 的首要障碍。最近,市场上出现了几种手持式超声设备("手持式"),临床医生正在寻求数据来指导购买决策。关于不同手持设备的比较研究很少。我们进行了一项横断面研究,比较了美国现售的六种手持式设备(Butterfly Network Inc.公司的 Butterfly iQ + ™;Clarius Mobile Health 公司的 Clarius™;EchoNous 公司的 Kosmos™;Mindray 公司的 TE Air™;通用电气公司的 Vscan Air™ SL 和 CL;以及飞利浦医疗保健公司的 Lumify™)。一个由 POCUS 专家组成的多专业医师小组(n = 35)在同一标准化患者身上按随机顺序采集了三个标准超声视图(腹部右上象限、心尖四腔、颈部浅表和肺部视图),并对图像质量进行了评分。随后,对每种手持设备的整体易用性、图像质量和满意度进行了最终调查:结果:35 位内科/医院内科、重症监护、急诊医学和肾脏内科的 POCUS 专家使用 6 种不同的手持设备获取了右上象限、心尖四腔、颈部浅表和肺部视图,并进行了评分。就图像质量而言,评分最高的手持设备是用于右上象限切面的 Vscan Air™、用于心尖四腔切面的 Mindray TE Air™,以及用于颈部和肺部浅表切面的 Lumify™。对 Vscan Air™、Lumify™ 和 Mindray 图像质量的总体满意度最高,而对 Vscan Air™ 易用性的总体满意度最高。手持设备最理想的 5 个特性是图像质量、易用性、便携性、探头大小和电池寿命。最终,所有 6 种手持设备都有明显的优缺点,没有一种设备具备所有理想的质量或功能:结论:在获取右上象限、心尖四腔以及颈部和肺部浅切面时,Vscan Air™、Lumify™ 和 Mindray TE Air™ 的图像质量总体满意度最高。在所有切面中,没有任何一款手持设备的图像质量更优。Vscan Air™ 在整体易用性方面评分最高,是 POCUS 专家最喜欢购买的手持设备。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ultrasound Journal
Ultrasound Journal Health Professions-Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
2.90%
发文量
45
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
Quantitative lung ultrasound findings correlate with radial alveolar count in experimental bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Tele-education in point-of-care ultrasound training. Comparison of 6 handheld ultrasound devices by point-of-care ultrasound experts: a cross-sectional study. Student ultrasound education, current view and controversies. Role of Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality and telemedicine. Sonographic findings using the SAFE-A protocol in pre- and post-hemodialysis patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1