Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
4.7
3.0
Journals
Diagnostics
Special Issues
Recent Advances and Application of Point of Care Ultrasound
share announcement

Recent Advances and Application of Point of Care Ultrasound

A special issue of Diagnostics (ISSN 2075-4418). This special issue belongs to the section "Point-of-Care Diagnostics and Devices".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 30 June 2025 | Viewed by 4340

Special Issue Editor

Dr. John Christian Fox

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
1. Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA
2. School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA
Interests: point of care ultrasound; medical ultrasound; emergency medicine; US; sonography; MRI

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

This Special Issue will focus on the impact of point-of-care ultrasound on the quality and safety in providing accurate patient care in a timely manner. The scope will encompass all specialties leveraging POCUS in their daily practice, including both outpatient and inpatient delivery models. Articles that demonstrate the ways in which POCUS impacts patient quality and safety, and helps guide resuscitation and procedures will be given priority. Additionally, articles which outline how ultrasound is taught and the methods of skill assessment at the undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate levels will also be a focus of this Special Issue. Finally, this issue will explore how artificial intelligence is changing the landscape of ultrasound image acquisition and interpretation.

Dr. John Christian Fox
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Diagnostics is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • POCUS
  • safety
  • diagnosis
  • ultrasound
  • resuscitation
  • medical education
  • imaging
  • procedural guidance
  • artificial intelligence
  • assessment

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (3 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

14 pages, 1021 KiB  
Article
Handheld Ultrasound Devices Used by Newly Certified Operators for Pneumonia in the Emergency Department—A Diagnostic Accuracy Study
by Morten Jongshøj Lorentzen, Anne Heltborg Kristensen, Frida Poppius Kaldan, Mariana Bichuette Cartuliares, Mathias Amdi Hertz, Jens Juel Specht, Stefan Posth, Mats Jacob Hermansson Lindberg, Søren Helbo Skaarup, Meinhard Reinert Hansen, Camilla Stræde Spile, Michael Brun Andersen, Ole Graumann, Christian Backer Mogensen, Helene Skjøt-Arkil and Christian B. Laursen
Diagnostics 2024, 14(17), 1921; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14171921 - 30 Aug 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 796
Abstract
The diagnostic accuracy of handheld ultrasound (HHUS) devices operated by newly certified operators for pneumonia is unknown. This multicenter diagnostic accuracy study included patients prospectively suspected of pneumonia from February 2021 to February 2022 in four emergency departments. The index test was a [...] Read more.
The diagnostic accuracy of handheld ultrasound (HHUS) devices operated by newly certified operators for pneumonia is unknown. This multicenter diagnostic accuracy study included patients prospectively suspected of pneumonia from February 2021 to February 2022 in four emergency departments. The index test was a 14-zone focused lung ultrasound (FLUS) examination, with consolidation with air bronchograms as diagnostic criteria for pneumonia. FLUS examinations were performed by newly certified operators using HHUS. The reference standard was computed tomography (CT) and expert diagnosis using all medical records. The sensitivity and specificity of FLUS and chest X-ray (CXR) were compared using McNemar’s test. Of the 324 scanned patients, 212 (65%) had pneumonia, according to the expert diagnosis. FLUS had a sensitivity of 31% (95% CI 26–36) and a specificity of 82% (95% CI 78–86) compared with the experts’ diagnosis. Compared with CT, FLUS had a sensitivity of 32% (95% CI 27–37) and specificity of 81% (95% CI 77–85). CXR had a sensitivity of 66% (95% CI 61–72) and a specificity of 76% (95% CI 71–81) compared with the experts’ diagnosis. Compared with CT, CXR had a sensitivity of 69% (95% CI 63–74) and a specificity of 68% (95% CI 62–72). Compared with the experts’ diagnosis and CT diagnosis, FLUS performed by newly certified operators using HHUS devices had a significantly lower sensitivity for pneumonia when compared to CXR (p < 0.001). FLUS had a significantly higher specificity than CXR using CT diagnosis as a reference standard (p = 0.02). HHUS exhibited low sensitivity for pneumonia when used by newly certified operators. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances and Application of Point of Care Ultrasound)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 3671 KiB  
Article
Prospective Comparison of Nine Different Handheld Ultrasound (HHUS) Devices by Ultrasound Experts with Regard to B-Scan Quality, Device Handling and Software in Abdominal Sonography
by Daniel Merkel, Christian Lueders, Christoph Schneider, Masuod Yousefzada, Johannes Ruppert, Andreas Weimer, Moritz Herzog, Liv Annebritt Lorenz, Thomas Vieth, Holger Buggenhagen, Julia Weinmann-Menke and Johannes Matthias Weimer
Diagnostics 2024, 14(17), 1913; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14171913 - 30 Aug 2024
Viewed by 2168
Abstract
Background: The HHUS market is very complex due to a multitude of equipment variants and several different device manufacturers. Only a few studies have compared different HHUS devices under clinical conditions. We conducted a comprehensive prospective observer study with a direct comparison of [...] Read more.
Background: The HHUS market is very complex due to a multitude of equipment variants and several different device manufacturers. Only a few studies have compared different HHUS devices under clinical conditions. We conducted a comprehensive prospective observer study with a direct comparison of nine different HHUS devices in terms of B-scan quality, device handling, and software features under abdominal imaging conditions. Methods: Nine different HHUS devices (Butterfly iQ+, Clarius C3HD3, D5CL Microvue, Philips Lumify, SonoEye Chison, SonoSite iViz, Mindray TE Air, GE Vscan Air, and Youkey Q7) were used in a prospective setting by a total of 12 experienced examiners on the same subjects in each case and then assessed using a detailed questionnaire regarding B-scan quality, handling, and usability of the software. The evaluation was carried out using a point scale (5 points: very good; 1 point: insufficient). Results: In the overall evaluation, Vscan Air and SonoEye Chison achieved the best ratings. They achieved nominal ratings between “good” (4 points) and “very good” (5 points). Both devices differed significantly (p < 0.01) from the other seven devices tested. Among the HHUS devices, Clarius C3HD3 and Vscan Air achieved the best results for B-mode quality, D5CL Microvue achieved the best results for device handling, and SonoEye Chison and Vscan Air achieved the best results for software. Conclusions: This is the first comprehensive study to directly compare different HHUS devices in a head-to-head manner. While the majority of the tested devices demonstrated satisfactory performance, notable discrepancies were observed between them. In particular, the B-scan quality exhibited considerable variation, which may have implications for the clinical application of HHUS. The findings of this study can assist in the selection of an appropriate HHUS device for specific applications, considering the clinical objectives and acknowledging the inherent limitations. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances and Application of Point of Care Ultrasound)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research

15 pages, 936 KiB  
Review
Role of Point-of-Care Gastric Ultrasound in Advancing Perioperative Fasting Guidelines
by Alina Razak, Silva Baburyan, Esther Lee, Ana Costa and Sergio D. Bergese
Diagnostics 2024, 14(21), 2366; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14212366 - 23 Oct 2024
Viewed by 1045
Abstract
Pulmonary aspiration in the perioperative period carries the risk of significant morbidity and mortality. As such, guidelines have been developed with the hopes of minimizing this risk by recommending fasting from solids and liquids over a specified amount of time. Point-of-care ultrasound has [...] Read more.
Pulmonary aspiration in the perioperative period carries the risk of significant morbidity and mortality. As such, guidelines have been developed with the hopes of minimizing this risk by recommending fasting from solids and liquids over a specified amount of time. Point-of-care ultrasound has altered the landscape of perioperative medicine; specifically, gastric ultrasound plays a pivotal role in perioperative assessment. Further, the advent of glucagon-like-peptide-1 receptor agonists, the widespread use of cannabis, and Enhanced Recovery program carbohydrate beverage presents new challenges when attempting to standardize fasting guidelines. This review synthesizes the literature surrounding perioperative fasting guidelines specifically with regard to the use of point-of-care ultrasound in assessing for gastric contents and minimizing the risk of aspiration. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances and Application of Point of Care Ultrasound)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-3
Back to TopTop