ArticleUltrasonography (Seoul, Korea)2025
Intelligent handheld ultrasound improving the ability of non-expert general practitioners in carotid examinations for community populations: a prospective and parallel controlled trial.
Article in Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Enhanced Super-Resolution Handheld Ultrasound for Carotid Plaque Detection in Community Screening.Annals of family medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of Image Interpretation of Carotid Ultrasound Findings on Lipid Management in Patients With Elevated ASCVD Risk.Brain and behavior · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of an intelligent handheld ultrasound (US) device for assisting non-expert general practitioners (GPs) in detecting carotid plaques (CPs) in community populations.
methodsThis prospective parallel controlled trial recruited 111 consecutive community residents. All of them underwent examinations by non-expert GPs and specialist doctors using handheld US devices (setting A, setting B, and setting C). The results of setting C with specialist doctors were considered the gold standard. Carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) and the features of CPs were measured and recorded. The diagnostic performance of GPs in distinguishing CPs was evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic curve. Inter-observer agreement was compared using the intragroup correlation coefficient (ICC). Questionnaires were completed to evaluate clinical benefits.
resultsAmong the 111 community residents, 80, 96, and 112 CPs were detected in settings A, B, and C, respectively. Setting B exhibited better diagnostic performance than setting A for detecting CPs (area under the curve, 0.856 vs. 0.749; P<0.01). Setting B had better consistency with setting C than setting A in CIMT measurement and the assessment of CPs (ICC, 0.731 to 0.923). Moreover, measurements in setting B required less time than the other two settings (44.59 seconds vs. 108.87 seconds vs. 126.13 seconds, both P<0.01).
conclusionUsing an intelligent handheld US device, GPs can perform CP screening and achieve a diagnostic capability comparable to that of specialist doctors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.