Comparative Performance of Low-Cost Portable Scanner in Pregnancy Profile Ultrasonography: A Promising Adjunct to Telemedicine
Main Article Content
Keywords
Portable ultrasound, Antenatal care, Pregnancy profiling, Maternal health, Telemedicine
Abstract
Background and Objective: Ultrasound scanners are widely used in various clinical settings, but conventional devices are too expensive to deploy in every healthcare facility in low-resource countries. Alternative, less costly instruments with comparable efficacy are required to ensure this diagnostic service is available in even remotest areas. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a commercially available low-cost portable ultrasound machine, particularly focusing on pregnancy profiling.
Material and Methods: A total of 77 pregnant females were scanned for basic obstetric parameters with two devices, first the low-cost scanner, and then a conventional ultrasound machine, considering the latter as the gold standard. The key obstetric parameters observed were the number of fetuses, the presence of cardiac pulsation and fetal movement, fetal biometry including Crown Rump Length (CRL), Bi-Parietal Diameter (BPD), and Femoral Length (FL), gestational age, placental location, amniotic fluid volume, and presentation of the fetus.
Results: The portable device performed well compared with the standard machine in observing the fetal number, presentation, movement, heartbeat, placental location, and amniotic fluid volume. The correlation coefficients (r²) for measuring BPD, FL, CRL, and gestational age using the portable and standard devices were 0.9578, 0.9415, 0.8230, and 0.983, respectively. The mean absolute error (MAE) in the measurement of BPD, FL, CRL, and gestational age were 2.24 mm, 2.14 mm, 6.5 mm, and 0.94 weeks, respectively.
Conclusion: The results demonstrated the potential of low-cost portable ultrasound devices in pregnancy profile scanning. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to explore their full potential. With appropriate data transfer arrangements, these devices have significant potential for integration into telemedicine services.
Downloads
References
2. WHO. Maternal Mortality 2023 [cited 2024 15 March]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/maternal-mortality.
3. Neiger R. Long-term effects of pregnancy complications on maternal health: a review. J Clin Med. 2017;6(8):76. https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fjcm6080076
4. Seffah JD, Adanu RM. Obstetric ultrasonography in low-income countries. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;52(2):250-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/grf.0b013e3181a4c2d5
5. Rykkje A, Carlsen J, Nielsen M. Hand-held ultrasound devices compared with high-end ultrasound systems: a systematic review. Diagnostics (Basel). 2019; 9 (2):61. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics9020061
6. Becker DM, Tafoya CA, Becker SL, Kruger GH, Tafoya MJ, Becker TK. The use of portable ultrasound devices in low‐and middle‐income countries: a systematic review of the literature. Tropic Med Int Health. 2016;21(3):294-311. https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.12657
7. van den Heuvel TLA, de Bruijn D, Moens-van de Moesdijk D, Beverdam A, van Ginneken B, de Korte CL. Comparison study of low-cost ultrasound devices for estimation of gestational age in resource-limited countries. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018;44(11):2250-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.05.023
8. Stock KF, Klein B, Steubl D, Lersch C, Heemann U, Wagenpfeil S, et al. Comparison of a pocket-size ultrasound device with a premium ultrasound machine: diagnostic value and time required in bedside ultrasound examination. Abdom Imag. 2015;40:2861-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0406-z
9. Bruns RF, Menegatti CM, Martins WP, Júnior EA. Applicability of pocket ultrasound during the first trimester of pregnancy. Medical Ultrasonography. 2015;17(3):284-8. https://doi.org/10.11152/mu.2013.2066.173.rfb
10. Kodaira Y, Pisani L, Boyle S, Olumide S, Orsi M, Adeniji AO, et al. Reliability of ultrasound findings acquired with hand-held apparatuses to inform urgent obstetric diagnosis in a high‐volume resource‐limited setting. Internat J Gynecol Obstet. 2021;153(2):280-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13475
11. Galjaard S, Baeck S, Ameye L, Bourne T, Timmerman D, Devlieger R. Use of a pocket‐sized ultrasound machine (PUM) for routine examinations in the third trimester of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44(1):64-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.13285
12. Temel G, Erdogan S. Determining the sample size in agreement studies. Marmara Med J. 2017;30(2):101-112. https://doi.org/10.5472/marumj.344822
13. Sunbright SUN P1 2024 [cited 2024 15 March]. Available from: https://www.sunbright.shop/Factory-price-SUN-P1-type-C-portable-usb-probes-ultrasound-for-sale-8317?d=2.11
14. Samsung. Accuvix A30 2024 [cited 2024 15 March]. Available from: https://www.samsung.com/hk_en/support/model/USS-AV30F4U/WR/
15. Barton B, Peat J. Medical statistics: A guide to SPSS, data analysis and critical appraisal: John Wiley & Sons; 2014.
16. Watson P, Petrie A. Method agreement analysis: a review of correct methodology. Theriogenology. 2010;73(9):1167-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.01.003
17. Andersen CA, Holden S, Vela J, Rathleff MS, Jensen MB. Point-of-care ultrasound in general practice: a systematic review. Ann Fam Med. 2019;17(1):61-9. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2330
18. Løkkegaard T, Todsen T, Nayahangan LJ, Andersen CA, Jensen MB, Konge L. Point-of-care ultrasound for general practitioners: a systematic needs assessment. Scand J Primary Health Care. 2020;38(1):3-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2020.1711572
19. Reynolds TA, Amato S, Kulola I, Chen C-JJ, Mfinanga J, Sawe HR. Impact of point-of-care ultrasound on clinical decision-making at an urban emergency department in Tanzania. PloS One. 2018;13(4):e0194774. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194774
20. Van den Hof MC. No. 359-Obstetric Ultrasound Biological Effects and Safety. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2018:40(5):627-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2017.11.023
21. Pedersen JK, Sira C, Trovik J. Hand-held transabdominal ultrasound, after limited training, may confirm first trimester viable intrauterine pregnancy: a prospective cohort study. Scand J Primary Health Care. 2021;39(2):123-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2021.1910643
22. MacGregor SN, Sabbagha RE. Assessment of Gestational Age by Ultrasound. Glob Libr Women’s Med. 2008. https://doi.org/10.3843/glowm.10206
23. Abramowicz J, Sheiner E. Ultrasound of the placenta: a systematic approach. Part I: imaging. Placenta. 2008;29(3):225-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.placenta.2007.12.006
24. Granfors M, Stephansson O, Endler M, Jonsson M, Sandström A, Wikström AK. Placental location and pregnancy outcomes in nulliparous women: A population‐based cohort study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2019;98(8):988-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13578
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Author(s) must obtain all parties consent [co-author(s), others if applicable] and submit the acceptance of Copyright Agreement with their paper. Written permission must be obtained by the author for material that has been published in copyrighted material; this includes tables, figures, and quoted text that exceeds 150 words. A copy of all permissions must accompany the manuscript when published in copyrighted material. The author(s) hereby represents and warrants that the paper is original and that he/she is the author of the paper, except for material that is clearly identified as to its original source, with permission notices from the copyright owners where required. Author(s) must clearly indicate that approval for publication has been received in cases of institutional ownership.
In all submitted material authors retain all copyrights; however, the GlobalCE Journal reserve the right to reprint all or portions of the article and to post all or part of the article online. GlobalCE Journal reserves the right to edit manuscripts as required to publish in the journal. Authors are responsible for obtaining any and all clearances as appropriate. Unless stated otherwise, all articles are open-access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and original work (e.g. first published in the Global Clinical Engineering Journal) is properly cited with the original URL and bibliographic citation information. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on www.Globalce.org well as the copyright and license information must be included. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
