Dataset Information

Hand-Held Ultrasound Devices Compared with High-End Ultrasound Systems: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to review the scientific literature available on the comparison of hand-held ultrasound devices with high-end systems for abdominal and pleural applications. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane were searched following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Original research describing hand-held ultrasound devices compared with high-end systems was included and assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2. The search was limited to articles published since 1 January 2012. A total of 2486 articles were found and screened by title and abstract. A total of 16 articles were chosen for final review. All of the included articles showed good overall agreement between hand-held and high-end ultrasound systems. Strong correlations were found when evaluating ascites, hydronephrosis, pleural cavities, in detection of abdominal aortic aneurysms and for use with obstetric and gynaecological patients. Other articles found good agreement for cholelithiasis and for determining the best site for paracentesis. QUADAS-2 analysis suggested few risks of bias and almost no concerns regarding applicability. For distinct clinical questions, hand-held devices may be a valuable supplement to physical examination. However, evidence is inadequate, and more research is needed on the abdominal and pleural use of hand-held ultrasound with more standardised comparisons, using only blinded reviewers.

SUBMITTER: Rykkje A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6628329 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Hand-Held Ultrasound Devices Compared with High-End Ultrasound Systems: A Systematic Review.

Rykkje Alexander A Carlsen Jonathan Frederik JF Nielsen Michael Bachmann MB

Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) 20190615 2

The aim of this study was to review the scientific literature available on the comparison of hand-held ultrasound devices with high-end systems for abdominal and pleural applications. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane were searched following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Original research describing hand-held ultrasound devices compared with high-end systems was included and assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accura ...[more]

PMID: 31208078

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:The diagnostic performance of an automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) compared with that of a hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) for breast cancer remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performances of the ABVS and HHUS for breast cancer. Methods:We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and SinoMed databases to identify eligible studies up until November 14, 2018. Studies comparing ABVS and HHUS for differentiating benign and malignant breast tumors were included. A meta-analysis was performed to generate pooled diagnostic accuracy parameters [sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under the curve (AUC), and the Q* index] and detection rates for ABVS and HHUS. Results:Nine studies involving 1,376 patients and 1,527 lesions were included in the meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy. The pooled sensitivity was 0.93 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91-0.95] for ABVS and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.88-0.92) for HHUS, and the pooled specificity was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.88) for ABVS and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.84) for HHUS. The pooled DOR was 88.66 (95% CI, 51.44-152.78) for ABVS and 41.06 for HHUS (95% CI, 26.58-63.42). The AUC of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) was 0.9496 for ABVS and 0.9143 for HHUS, and the Q* index was 0.8899 for ABVS and 0.8469 for HHUS. Meta-regression showed no significant difference between the diagnostic accuracy of ABVS and HHUS (P=0.0771). No publication bias was found. Thirteen published studies involving 1,047 pathologically confirmed malignant lesions were included to generate a pooled detection rate. The pooled detection rate was 1.00 (95% CI, 1.00-1.00) for both ABVS and HHUS, for which a publication bias was found. Conclusions:ABVS can be used as an appropriate screening tool for breast cancer as well as HHUS in diagnostic accuracy and detection rate. Considering other advantages of ABVS including non-radioactivity, sensitivity to dense breast, three-dimensional reconstruction, time-saving and repeatability, it might be a promising screening tool for young or dense-breast women in the future.

Project description:BackgroundHand hygiene is one of the most effective ways of preventing health care-associated infections and reducing their transmission. Owing to recent advances in sensing technologies, electronic hand hygiene monitoring systems have been integrated into the daily routines of health care workers to measure their hand hygiene compliance and quality.ObjectiveThis review aims to summarize the latest technologies adopted in electronic hand hygiene monitoring systems and discuss the capabilities and limitations of these systems.MethodsA systematic search of PubMed, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore Digital Library was performed following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies were initially screened and assessed independently by the 2 authors, and disagreements between them were further summarized and resolved by discussion with the senior author.ResultsIn total, 1035 publications were retrieved by the search queries; of the 1035 papers, 89 (8.60%) fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were retained for review. In summary, 73 studies used electronic monitoring systems to monitor hand hygiene compliance, including application-assisted direct observation (5/73, 7%), camera-assisted observation (10/73, 14%), sensor-assisted observation (29/73, 40%), and real-time locating system (32/73, 44%). A total of 21 studies evaluated hand hygiene quality, consisting of compliance with the World Health Organization 6-step hand hygiene techniques (14/21, 67%) and surface coverage or illumination reduction of fluorescent substances (7/21, 33%).ConclusionsElectronic hand hygiene monitoring systems face issues of accuracy, data integration, privacy and confidentiality, usability, associated costs, and infrastructure improvements. Moreover, this review found that standardized measurement tools to evaluate system performance are lacking; thus, future research is needed to establish standardized metrics to measure system performance differences among electronic hand hygiene monitoring systems. Furthermore, with sensing technologies and algorithms continually advancing, more research is needed on their implementation to improve system performance and address other hand hygiene-related issues.

Project description:BackgroundEarly identification of patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) could facilitate the care of patients with suspected heart failure (HF). We examined if (1) focused cardiac ultrasound (FCU) performed with a hand-held device (Vscan 1.2) could identify patients with LVEF < 50%, and (2) the distribution of HF types among patients with suspected HF seen at primary care clinics.MethodsFCU performed by general practitioners (GPs)/GP registrars after a training programme comprising 20 supervised FCU examinations were compared with the corresponding results from conventional cardiac ultrasound by specialists. The agreement between groups of estimated LVEF < 50%, after visual assessment of global left ventricular function, was compared. Types of HF were determined according to the outcomes from the reference examinations and serum levels of natriuretic peptides (NT-proBNP).ResultsOne hundred patients were examined by FCU that was performed by 1-4 independent examiners as well as by the reference method, contributing to 140 examinations (false positive rate, 19.0%; false negative rate, 52.6%; sensitivity, 47.4% [95% confidence interval [CI]: 27.3-68.3]; specificity, 81.0% [95% CI: 73.1-87.0]; Cohen's κ measure for agreement = 0.22 [95% CI: 0.03-0.40]). Among patients with false negative examinations, 1/7 had HF with LVEF < 40%, while the others had HF with LVEF 40-49% or did not meet the full criteria for HF. In patients with NT-proBNP > 125 ng/L and fulfilling the criteria for HF (68/94), HF with preserved LVEF (≥50%) predominated, followed by mid-range (40-49%) or reduced LVEF (< 40%) HF types (53.2, 11.7 and 7.4%, respectively).ConclusionsThere was poor agreement between expert examiners using standard ultrasound equipment and non-experts using a handheld ultrasound device to identify patients with reduced LVEF. Asides from possible shortcomings of the training programme, the poor performance of non-experts could be explained by their limited experience in identifying left ventricular dysfunction because of the low percentage of patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction seen in the primary care setting.Trial registrationThe study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02939157). Registered 19 October 2016.

Dataset Information

Hand-Held Ultrasound Devices Compared with High-End Ultrasound Systems: A Systematic Review.

Publications

Hand-Held Ultrasound Devices Compared with High-End Ultrasound Systems: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets