| Title: |
Evaluation of image quality in five different handheld ultrasound devices and analysis of various impact factors |
| Authors: |
Naas, Antje; Kober, Julian; Trittler, Tönnis; Nauber, Richard; Dorausch, Edgar Manfred Gustav; Kampfrath, Nicole; Brinkmann, Franz; Arsova, Maia; Husman, Julia; Langanke, Robert; Sulk, Stefan; Matthes, Katja; Gabriel, Tina; Teufel, Andreas; Behrendt, Patrick; Markova, Antoaneta; Franck, Martin; Jenssen, Christian; Merkel, Daniel; Blank, Valentin; Karlas, Thomas; Seeger, Marcus; Eckart, Marius Andreas; Poralla, Lukas; Lehmann, Malte; Staudacher, Jonas; Ziesch, Matthias; Aland, Julia; Herzog, Lueder; Herzog, Angelika; Jürgensen, Christian; Fettweis, Gerhard Paul; Hampe, Jochen; Herzog, Moritz |
| Source: |
Ultraschall in der Medizin - European Journal of Ultrasound ; ISSN 0172-4614 1438-8782 |
| Publisher Information: |
Georg Thieme Verlag KG |
| Publication Year: |
2026 |
| Description: |
Handheld ultrasound (HHUS) devices are increasingly used in clinical practice due to their portability and cost-effectiveness. However, HHUS image quality remains variable, and a standardized expert-based evaluation protocol is lacking. This study compares the image quality of B-mode recordings of five HHUS models with a high-end reference system (HEUS) using a blinded assessment to identify differences, covariates, offering a standardized evaluation framework. In this blinded, multi-center study, video sequences of the liver, pancreas, and sigmoid colon were recorded in ten volunteers using 5 HHUS devices – Vscan Air, Butterfly iQ+, Philips Lumify, Clarius C3, and Clarius C3 HD3 – and one HEUS (GE Logiq E10). Twenty-two physicians with many years of abdominal ultrasound experience rated blinded clips for 5 image quality parameters. The HEUS consistently received the highest ratings. Image quality differed significantly between HHUS devices. Clarius systems showed the smallest deviation from the reference, followed by Vscan Air and Philips Lumify. All image parameters significantly correlated with the overall impression, without a single dominant factor. The patients’ BMI had no relevant influence. Examiner experience was less impactful than device familiarity and personal preference. The image quality of HEUS remained superior to all tested HHUS devices. Further subdivision of image quality aspects did not provide additional information. Furthermore, we could not identify significant covariates in our setup. These findings could justify simplified setups with reduced questionnaires and requirements for examiners. |
| Document Type: |
article in journal/newspaper |
| Language: |
German |
| DOI: |
10.1055/a-2809-7627 |
| DOI: |
10.1055/a-2809-7627.pdf |
| Availability: |
https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2809-7627; http://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ejournals/pdf/10.1055/a-2809-7627.pdf |
| Rights: |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
| Accession Number: |
edsbas.A904088E |
| Database: |
BASE |