Conventional Ultrasound Versus Remote Ultraportable ulTrasound in the Context of Viral Hepatitis
For patients and families
In plain language
An automatic summary of structured registry data. It is an orientation aid, not a substitute for the official protocol or a physician assessment.
- What is being studied
- The protocol lists: TUP ultraportable US with teleradiology capacities, CUS conventional ultrasound.
- Who it may be relevant to
- Registry conditions: Hepatitis, Teleradiology. Basic parameters: from 18 years · All.
- What needs checking
- Age, condition and sex are only basic indicators. Prior treatment, laboratory values and other mandatory requirements appear in the eligibility criteria below.
- Where it takes place
- Switzerland
- Next step
- Save the trial, show it to the treating physician, and confirm current recruitment with the study center. Costs, documents and travel →
Unsure about the terms? Read our patient guide →
Official title
Comparison Between Conventional Ultrasound and Remote Ultraportable ulTrasound for Abdominal Examination in the Context of Viral Hepatitis
Overview
Comparison of abdominal US exam in patients with viral hepatitis between ultraportable US with teleradiology capacities (TUP) versus conventional ultrasound (CUS)
Detailed description
Primary Objective The investigation seeks primarily to determine the performance of abdominal US examinations realized with TUP and CUS based on defined imaging criteria Secondary Objectives Evaluate satisfaction and comfort and reproducibility of use of the ultraportable US
Interventions
- Device TUP ultraportable US with teleradiology capacities
Comparison of abdominal ultrasound examinations in an at-risk population diagnosed with viral hepatitis: Ultraportable ultrasound with teleradiology capacities (TUP) versus conventional ultrasound (CUS). - Device CUS conventional ultrasound
Comparison of abdominal ultrasound examinations in an at-risk population diagnosed with viral hepatitis: Ultraportable ultrasound with teleradiology capacities (TUP) versus conventional ultrasound (CUS).
Primary outcome measures
- Comparison of TUP versus CUS for abdominal imaging in patients with viral hepatitis according to US LI-RADS categories ) for liver lesions [Time frame: At the end of intervention]
Secondary outcome measures (12)
- liver visualization scores [Time frame: At the end of intervention]
- liver surface nodularity [Time frame: At the end of intervention]
- focal lesions [Time frame: At the end of intervention]
- caudate lobe dimensions [Time frame: At the end of intervention]
- portal flow velocity [Time frame: At the end of intervention]
- biliary tract / gallbladder abnormalities [Time frame: At the end of intervention]
- lymph nodes presence [Time frame: At the end of intervention]
- free fluid [Time frame: At the end of intervention]
- examination time [Time frame: At the end of intervention]
- audio quality [Time frame: At the end of intervention]
- video quality [Time frame: At the end of intervention]
- patient's satisfaction [Time frame: At the end of intervention]
Eligibility criteria
Inclusion criteria
- Informed Consent signed by the subject
- All adult patients with viral hepatitis for which an ultrasound is planned
Exclusion criteria
- Known or suspected non-compliance
- Inability to follow the procedures of the study, e.g. due to language problems, psychological disorders, dementia, etc. of the participant,
- Previous enrollment into the current study
Criteria are shown verbatim from the registry (in English). Final eligibility is always assessed by the study center.
Healthy volunteers: No
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
Study locations
Switzerland · 1 center
- Lausanne University Hospital — Lausanne
Identifiers
NCT: NCT06571981 · BASEC 2024-D0048