Assessment of Thyroid Gland in Children with Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS): Radiological Performance and Feasibility of Handheld Ultrasound in Clinical Practice

Objective: Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) refers to the use of portable ultrasound machines to perform quick and focused ultrasound examinations at a patient's bedside or point-of-care. POCUS can be performed by all health workers with specific training to use POCUS. The aim of this study was to investigate the radiological performance and feasibility of POCUS using a handheld ultrasound device (HHUSD) in children for examining the thyroid gland. Methods: A pediatric endocrinologist performed thyroid imaging in children referred to our hospital with suspected thyroid disease using an HHUSD. The same children underwent ultrasonography (US) imaging using the same device by the first radiologist, and a second radiologist performed thyroid US using an advanced high-range ultrasound device (AHUSD) (defined as the gold-standard method) within two hours. The data obtained by the three researchers were compared with each other. Results: This study included 105 patients [68.6% girls (n=72)] with a mean age 12.8 +/- 3.6 years. When the thyroid volume was evaluated, a strong correlation was found between the measurements of the three researchers (AA vs. MG: r=0.963, AA vs. GT: r=0.969, MG vs. GT: r=0.963, p<0.001). According to the Bland-Altman analysis for total thyroid volume, AA measured 0.43 cc [95% confidence interval (CI):-0.89-0.03] smaller than MG, and 0.11 cc (95% CI:-0.30-0.52) larger than GT, whereas MG measured 0.52 cc (95% CI: 0.090.94) larger than GT. When evaluated for the presence of goiter and nodules, a near-perfect agreement was found between the results of the three researchers (AA vs. GT; kappa =0.863, MG vs. GT; kappa =0.887, p<0.001, and AA vs. GT; kappa =1.000, MG vs. GT; kappa =0.972, p<0.001, respectively). When evaluated in terms of the longest axis of nodules, a high correlation was found between the measurements of the three researchers (AA vs. MG; r=0.993, AA vs. GT; r=0.996, MG vs. GT; r=0.996, p<0.001). When evaluated in terms of the final diagnosis, the evaluations of the three researchers showed excellent agreement with each other (AA vs. GT; kappa =0.893, MG vs. GT; kappa =0.863, p<0.001, accuracy rate AA vs. GT: 93.3%; MG vs. GT: 91.4%).