The effect of display size on ultrasound interpretation

Abstract

Objectives: Ultrasound (US) is an essential component of emergency department patient care. US machines have become smaller and more affordable. Handheld ultrasound (HUS) machines are even more portable and easy to use at the patient's bedside. However, miniaturization may come with consequences. The ability to accurately interpret ultrasound on a smaller screen is unknown. This pilot study aims to assess how screen size affects the ability of emergency medicine clinicians to accurately interpret US videos.

Methods: This pilot study enrolled a prospective convenience sample of emergency medicine physicians. Participants completed a survey and were randomized to interpret US videos starting with either a phone-sized screen or a laptop-sized screen, switching to the other device at the halfway point. 50 unique US videos depicting right upper quadrant (RUQ) views of the Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) examination were chosen for inclusion in the study. There were 25 US videos per device. All of the images were previously obtained on a cart-based machine (Mindray M9) and preselected by the study authors. Participants answered "Yes" or "No" in response to whether they identified free fluid. The time that each participant took to interpret each video was also recorded. Following the assessment, participants completed a post-interpretation survey. The goal of the pilot was to determine the accuracy of image interpretation on a small screen as compared to a laptop-sized screen. Statistical analyses were performed using MATLAB (The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA). Nonparametric statistical tests were utilized to compare subgroups, with a Wilcoxon signed rank test used for paired data and a Wilcoxon rank sum test for unpaired data.

Results: 52 emergency medicine physicians were enrolled in the study. The median accuracy of US interpretation for phone versus laptop image screen was 88.0% and 87.6% (p = 0.67). The mean time to interpret with phone versus laptop screen was 293 and 290 s (p = 0.66).

Conclusions: The study found no statistically significant difference in the accuracy of US interpretation nor time spent interpreting when the pre-selected RUQ videos generated on a cart-based ultrasound machine were reviewed on a phone-sized versus a laptop-sized screen. This pilot study suggests that the accuracy of US interpretation may not be dependent upon the size of the screen utilized.

Keywords: Beside ultrasound; Emergency medicine; FAST; Handheld ultrasound; Point-of-care ultrasound; Trauma.