| Title |
The use of portable ultrasound devices in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a systematic review of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tropical Medicine & International Health, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1111/tmi.12657 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dawn M Becker, Chelsea A Tafoya, Sören L Becker, Grant H Kruger, Matthew J Tafoya, Torben K Becker |
| Abstract |
To review the scientific literature pertaining to the use of hand-carried and hand-held ultrasound devices in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), with a focus on clinical applications, geographical areas of use, the impact on patient management and technical features of the devices used. The electronic databases PubMed and Google Scholar were searched. No language or date restrictions were applied. Case reports and original research describing the use of hand-carried ultrasound devices in LMIC were included if agreed upon as relevant by two-reviewer consensus based on our predefined research questions. 644 articles were found and screened, and 36 manuscripts were included for final review. 27 studies were original research articles and 9 were case reports. Several reports describe the successful diagnosis and management of difficult, often life-threatening conditions, using hand-carried and hand-held ultrasound. These portable ultrasound devices have also been studied for cardiac screening exams, as well as a rapid triage tool in rural areas and after natural disaster. Most applications focus on obstetrical and abdominal complaints. Portable ultrasound may have an impact on clinical management in up to 70% of all cases. However, no randomised controlled trials have evaluated the impact of ultrasound-guided diagnosis and treatment in resource-constrained settings. The exclusion of articles published in journals not listed in the large databases may have biased our results. Our findings are limited by the lack of higher-quality evidence (e.g. controlled trials). Hand-carried and hand-held ultrasound is successfully being used to triage, diagnose and treat patients with a variety of complaints in LMIC. However, the quality of the current evidence is low. There is an urgent need to perform larger clinical trials assessing the impact of hand-carried ultrasound in LMIC. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 38% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 8% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| South Africa | 1 | 8% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 46% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 38% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 199 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 27 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 10% |
| Researcher | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 9% |
| Other | 39 | 20% |
| Unknown | 50 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 86 | 43% |
| Engineering | 16 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 6% |
| Unknown | 61 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,854,241
of 25,460,914 outputs
Outputs from Tropical Medicine & International Health
#115
of 3,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,267
of 401,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tropical Medicine & International Health
#1
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,460,914 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,058 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 401,160 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.