An observational study in Hepatitis and Teleradiology, sponsored by Naik Vietti Violi. Recruiting at 1 site in Switzerland. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-30.
Sponsored by Naik Vietti Violi · Observational
Comparison of abdominal US exam in patients with viral hepatitis between ultraportable US with teleradiology capacities (TUP) versus conventional ultrasound (CUS)
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
343 studies on the registry are indexed under Hepatitis; 51 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 102 is below the median of 358 across 90 observational studies indexed under Hepatitis.
Browse Hepatitis studies →Naik Vietti Violi is the lead sponsor of 2 studies on the registry; 2 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Every outpatient referred to the radiology department by a prescriber for abdominal US in the context of viral hepatitis
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Every outpatient referred to the radiology department by a prescriber for abdominal US in the context of viral hepatitis
Device: TUP ultraportable US with teleradiology capacities · 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).
Comparison of abdominal ultrasound examinations in an at-risk population diagnosed with viral hepatitis: Ultraportable ultrasound with teleradiology capacities (TUP) versus conventional ultrasound (CUS).
Comparison of TUP versus CUS for abdominal imaging in patients with viral hepatitis according to US LI-RADS categories ) for liver lesions
LI RADS categories No observation OR Only definitely benign observation(s) Observation(s) \< 10 mm in diameter, not definitely benign Observation(s) ≥ 10 mm in diameter, not definitely benign OR New thrombus in vein
Time frame: At the end of intervention
liver visualization scores
no or minimal limitations; moderate limitations; severe limitations
Time frame: At the end of intervention
liver surface nodularity
Yes/No
Time frame: At the end of intervention
focal lesions
Yes/No
Time frame: At the end of intervention
caudate lobe dimensions
cm
Time frame: At the end of intervention
portal flow velocity
cm/s
Time frame: At the end of intervention
biliary tract / gallbladder abnormalities
Yes/No
Time frame: At the end of intervention
lymph nodes presence
Yes/No
Time frame: At the end of intervention
free fluid
Yes/No
Time frame: At the end of intervention
examination time
minutes
Time frame: At the end of intervention
audio quality
Adequate/Non Adequate
Time frame: At the end of intervention
video quality
Adequate/Non Adequate
Time frame: At the end of intervention
patient's satisfaction
Yes/No
Time frame: At the end of intervention
agreement rates between reports
Category 1: complete agreement/matching with teleradiologists reports; Category 2: minor discrepancy that would not impact patient management which included hedging terminology and ambiguous differences, for example fatty versus moderate fatty liver; Category 3: major discrepancy that would likely have an impact/change on patient management but would not lead to an adverse outcome for the patient; Category 4: major discrepancy that would impact patient management and lead to adverse outcomes for the patient.
Time frame: At the end of intervention
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
Contact study teamGet an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Naik Vietti Violi