Purpose: This study was aimed to investigate the reproducibility of shear wave elastography (SWE) among operators, machines, and probes in a phantom, and to evaluate the effect of depth of the embedded inclusions and the accuracy of the measurements. Methods: In vitro stiffness measurements were made of six inclusions (10, 40, and 60 kPa) embedded at two depths (1.5 cm and 5 cm) in an elastography phantom. Measurements were obtained by two sonographers using two ultrasound machines (the SuperSonic Imagine Aixplorer with the XC6-1, SL10-2 and SL18-5 probes, and the General Electric LOGIQ E9 with the 9L-D probe). Variability was evaluated using the coefficient of variation. Reproducibility was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Results: For shallow inclusions, low variability was observed between operators (range, 0.9% to 5.4%). However, the variability increased significantly for deep inclusions (range, 2.4% to 80.8%). The measurement difference between the operators was 1%-15% for superficial inclusions and 3%-43% for deep inclusions. Inter-operator reproducibility was almost perfect (ICC>0.90). The measurement difference between machines was 0%-15% for superficial inclusions and 38.6%-82.9% for deep inclusions. For superficial inclusions, the reproducibility among the three probes was excellent (ICC>0.97). The mean stiffness values of the 10 kPa inclusion were overestimated by 16%, while those of the 40 kPa and 60 kPa inclusions were underestimated by 42% and 48%, respectively. Conclusion: Phantom SWE measurements were only reproducible among operators, machines, and probes at superficial depths. SWE measurements acquired in deep regions should not be used interchangeably among operators, machines, or probes.

BACKGROUND: Ultraportable or pocket handheld ultrasound devices (HUD) may be useful for large-scale abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. However, the reproducibility of measurements has not been compared with conventional cart-based ultrasound machines. OBJECTIVES: Investigate the intra- and inter-operator reproducibility of a HUD compared with a conventional ultrasound machine for aortic screening. DESIGN: Analytical, cross-sectional. SETTING: Ultrasound department at a large tertiary care hospital in Riyadh. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible male participants aged ≥60 years were invited to participate upon arriving for a non-vascular ultrasound appointment. Three repeated anteroposterior measurements of the transverse aorta were made at the proximal and distal locations for each machine before repeating the measurements on a subset of participants by a second blinded operator. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and the Bland-Altman method were used to analyze reproducibility. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Inter-system and intra- and inter-operator ICCs. SAMPLE SIZE: 114 males with repeated measurements by second operator on a subset of 35 participants. RESULTS: The median age (interquartile range) of participants was 68 years (62–74 years). The intra- and inter-operator ICCs were all >0.800 showing almost perfect agreement except for the inter-operator reproducibility at the proximal location using a conventional machine (ICC= 0.583, P =.007) and the Butterfly device (ICC=0.467, P =.037). The inter-system ICCs (95% CI) were 0.818 (0.736–0.874) and 0.879 (0.799–0.924) at the proximal and distal locations, respectively. The mean difference in aortic measurement between the ultrasound systems was 0.3 mm (1.7%) in the proximal location and 0.6 mm (3.6%) in the distal location. In total, >91% of the difference in measurements between the machines was <3 mm. The mean scanning time was 4:16 minutes for the conventional system and 3:53 minutes for the HUD ( P =.34). CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal aortic screening using a HUD was feasible and reliable compared with a conventional ultrasound machine. A pocket HUD should be considered for large-scale screening. LIMITATIONS: No cases of abdominal aortic aneurysm in the sample and lack of blinding. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.