Comparison of Six Handheld Ultrasound Devices by Pediatric Point of Care Ultrasound (POCUS) Experts
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) use is increasing among pediatric clinicians, but lack of access to ultrasound devices is a major barrier. The availability of pocket-sized handheld ultrasound devices (“handhelds”) has improved access. However, no head-to-head comparative studies of handhelds in children have been performed to guide purchasing decisions. Methods: This cross-sectional study compared six handhelds: Butterfly iQ+™ (Butterfly Network Inc.), Clarius® (Clarius Mobile Health™), Kosmos™(EchoNous), TE Air™ (Mindray®), Vscan Air™ SL (General Electric), and Lumify™ (Philips Healthcare). Eight pediatric POCUS experts acquired views showing the abdominal right upper quadrant (RUQ), cardiac apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung on a standardized pediatric model using each handheld. Experts rated each handheld by its image quality, ease of use, and their overall satisfaction. Results: Vscan Air™, Kosmos™, and Lumify™ were rated highest for ease of use, image quality, and overall satisfaction. Most experts recommended Vscan Air™ for purchase. The five most desirable characteristics of handhelds were image quality, ease of use, total costs, transducer size, and availability of different transducer types. All six handhelds had important advantages and disadvantages per experts, and no single device had all the desired characteristics. Conclusions: Pediatric POCUS experts rated Vscan Air™, Kosmos™, and Lumify™ highest for ease of use, image quality, and overall satisfaction. No device was clearly superior across all applications. Subjective characteristics, particularly probe ergonomics, may be a deciding factor when selecting handhelds in pediatrics. There is a need to develop handhelds specifically for use in pediatric populations. Background: Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) use is increasing among pediatric clinicians, but lack of access to ultrasound devices is a major barrier. The availability of pocket-sized handheld ultrasound devices (“handhelds”) has improved access. However, no head-to-head comparative studies of handhelds in children have been performed to guide purchasing decisions. Methods: This cross-sectional study compared six handhelds: Butterfly iQ+™ (Butterfly Network Inc.), Clarius® (Clarius Mobile Health™), Kosmos™(EchoNous), TE Air™ (Mindray®), Vscan Air™ SL (General Electric), and Lumify™ (Philips Healthcare). Eight pediatric POCUS experts acquired views showing the abdominal right upper quadrant (RUQ), cardiac apical 4-chamber, and superficial neck and lung on a standardized pediatric model using each handheld. Experts rated each handheld by its image quality, ease of use, and their overall satisfaction. Results: Vscan Air™, Kosmos™, and Lumify™ were rated highest for ease of use, image quality, and overall satisfaction. Most experts recommended Vscan Air™ for purchase. The five most desirable characteristics of handhelds were image quality, ease of use, total costs, transducer size, and availability of different transducer types. All six handhelds had important advantages and disadvantages per experts, and no single device had all the desired characteristics. Conclusions: Pediatric POCUS experts rated Vscan Air™, Kosmos™, and Lumify™ highest for ease of use, image quality, and overall satisfaction. No device was clearly superior across all applications. Subjective characteristics, particularly probe ergonomics, may be a deciding factor when selecting handhelds in pediatrics. There is a need to develop handhelds specifically for use in pediatric populations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».