An observational study in Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound, Ultrasonic Diagnosis and Liver, sponsored by University of Bern. Recruiting at 1 site in Switzerland. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-25.
Sponsored by University of Bern · Observational
This study aims to establish international consensus-based quality criteria for contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) examinations of the liver and to develop a standardized tool for assessing CEUS image and examination quality. CEUS is an established imaging technique used in clinical practice for the characterization and assessment of focal liver lesions and other liver abnormalities. Despite its increasing use, there are currently no universally accepted or validated standards for evaluating the quality and reproducibility of CEUS examinations.
The primary objective of this project is therefore to identify robust and clinically relevant quality indicators for liver CEUS examinations through an international Delphi consensus process. The study focuses specifically on CEUS examinations performed in adult patients using the ultrasound contrast agent SonoVue®.
The project is divided into two work packages (WP). In Work Package 1 (WP1), the study team will first conduct a structured review of the available literature and discuss potential CEUS quality criteria within the research group. Based on this process, an initial catalogue of quality indicators relating to technical, procedural, and imaging characteristics relevant to liver CEUS examinations will be developed.
These proposed criteria will subsequently be evaluated through a multi-round Delphi process involving an international and interdisciplinary panel of experienced CEUS users and experts. A minimum of 35 panellists will participate across all Delphi rounds. Participants will rate their level of agreement with each proposed quality criterion using a 7-point Likert scale and may suggest additional criteria in the first round where appropriate. Newly proposed criteria supported by more than 10% of participants will be included in subsequent Delphi rounds.
During each round, panellists will receive anonymised feedback summarising the responses of the group and will be invited to re-evaluate the relevance of the proposed criteria. This iterative process will continue for at least three rounds or until predefined consensus criteria are achieved. Consensus will be defined as at least 70% agreement with a rating of 6 or higher on the Likert scale.
In Work Package 2 (WP2), the consensus-based quality criteria identified in WP1 will be operationalised into a comprehensive and standardised rating scale for CEUS image and examination quality assessment. Individual criteria will be grouped into broader data derived quality domains and transformed into practical assessment items and prompts. The proposed rating scale will use a three point scoring system (0="unacceptable quality", 1="acceptable quality", 3="High quality". The resulting rating tool will then be circulated among all Delphi panel members who completed all three Delphi rounds for final review and feedback to ensure clarity, applicability, and international usability.
The overall goal of this study is to improve standardization, quality assurance, and reproducibility in liver CEUS images and examinations. The developed consensus criteria and rating scale may support clinical practice, future research studies, multicentre collaborations, and educational initiatives by enabling more consistent evaluation of CEUS image quality across institutions and countries.
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is an established and widely used imaging modality for the evaluation of focal liver lesions and other hepatic abnormalities. It plays an increasingly important role in clinical diagnostics due to its real-time imaging capability, safety profile, and broad availability. Despite its clinical relevance, there is currently no internationally standardised definition of adequate CEUS image quality, and no validated criteria exist for its objective assessment. As a result, interpretation and perceived diagnostic quality of CEUS examinations may vary considerably between operators, institutions, and healthcare systems.
The aim of this study is to develop internationally agreed, consensus-based quality criteria for adequate CEUS image and examination quality in liver examinations and to translate these criteria into a comprehensive, universally applicable and standardised rating tool. The overall objective is to improve the reproducibility, comparability, and standardisation of CEUS examinations in both clinical practice and research settings.
To achieve this, the study is structured into two work packages (WP). Work Package 1 (WP1) focuses on identifying and refining relevant quality criteria for CEUS of the adult liver through an international and interdisciplinary Delphi consensus process.
Work Package 2 (WP2) focuses on clustering and operationalising the agreed criteria into overarching domains and developing a structured rating scale for practical application.
In WP1, a preliminary set of potential quality indicators will be generated based on a structured literature review and expert discussion within the study team. These indicators will reflect technical, procedural, and image-related aspects of liver CEUS examinations. The most commonly applied CEUS context, adult liver imaging, will serve as the clinical focus of the study. The criteria will address adequate quality of liver CEUS examinations and imaging, including image related and examination related aspects on liver CEUS using SonoVue.
An international panel of CEUS experts will be recruited based on defined expertise criteria, including extensive clinical experience in ultrasound and CEUS, training involvement, and scientific contribution to the field. Approximately 35 experts will be invited to participate in the first Delphi round, with an expected final panel size of at least 20 participants across all rounds.
The Delphi process will consist of three iterative survey rounds. In each round, participants will rate their agreement with predefined statements describing potential quality criteria using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "completely disagree" to "completely agree," with an additional option for "outside of my expertise." Participants may also suggest additional criteria in the first round. Free-text responses will be systematically analysed, categorised, and included in subsequent rounds if supported by at least 10% of participants.
After each round, anonymised aggregated feedback will be provided to participants, including summary statistics such as median scores, interquartile ranges, and agreement rates. Participants will then be asked to reconsider and, if appropriate, revise their ratings in light of group responses. Consensus will be defined a priori as at least 70% of panellists rating a criterion as "agree" or "completely agree." Criteria not reaching consensus after repeated rounds will be revised or excluded according to predefined rules.
In Work Package 2 (WP2), the consensus-based quality criteria identified in WP1 will be operationalised into a comprehensive and standardised rating scale for CEUS image and examination quality assessment. Individual criteria will be grouped into broader data derived quality domains and transformed into practical assessment items and prompts. The proposed rating scale will use a three point scoring system (0="unacceptable quality", 1="acceptable quality", 3="High quality". The resulting rating tool will then be circulated among all Delphi panel members who completed all three Delphi rounds for final review and feedback to ensure clarity, applicability, and international usability.
WP2 will translate the final consensus-based criteria into a structured rating scale for assessing CEUS image quality. The agreed criteria will be organised into overarching domains reflecting key dimensions of image and examination quality. Within each domain, individual criteria will serve as structured prompts to guide evaluation. The resulting scale will be designed to be practical and reproducible and will use a simplified scoring system for domain-level assessment (0="unacceptable quality", 1="acceptable quality", 3="High quality").
Depending on the Delphi findings, non-imaging or technical aspects may be included as a separate domain.
The draft rating scale will be reviewed by the Delphi panel participants who completed all rounds. They will be asked to evaluate agreement with each domain and with the overall structure of the scale using a structured binary response format, with optional qualitative feedback. If predefined acceptance thresholds are not met, an additional revision round will be conducted.
Data analysis will include descriptive statistics for each criterion, including median and interquartile range, as well as calculation of agreement proportions. Responses indicating "outside of my expertise" will be treated as missing data and excluded from statistical calculations. Criteria will be evaluated against predefined consensus thresholds to determine inclusion, revision, or exclusion across Delphi rounds.
The final outcome of this study will be an internationally derived consensus set of quality criteria for liver CEUS images/examinations and a structured, standardised rating tool for assessing CEUS image quality. This framework is intended to support improved quality assurance, enhance reproducibility, and facilitate harmonisation of CEUS practice across institutions and countries in both clinical and research contexts.
The study population consists of internationally recognised CEUS experts from radiology and internal medicine with extensive clinical and scientific experience in ultrasound diagnostics. Participants are recruited from multiple countries to form an interdisciplinary expert panel.
Inclusion requires expertise comparable to DEGUM Level III, including substantial ultrasound experience, regular performance of CEUS examinations, and involvement in CEUS training and/or research.
Approximately 35 experts will be invited for the first Delphi round, with at least 20 expected to complete all rounds. The purposive sampling approach ensures a highly specialised panel aimed at achieving expert consensus rather than statistical representativeness.
Exclusion Criteria:
Which proposed contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) quality criteria achieve expert consensus, defined as ≥70% of panellists assigning a score of 6 ("agree") or 7 ("strongly agree") on a 7-point Delphi Likert scale, by the end of Round 3?
The number and individual content of proposed CEUS quality criteria that achieve predefined consensus after completion of the Delphi process. Consensus is defined as ≥70% of participating experts assigning a score of 6 ("agree") or 7 ("completely agree") on a 7-point Likert scale evaluating the statement: "This criterion indicates adequate quality of a CEUS examination." The rating is based on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate stronger agreement that the criterion reflects adequate CEUS image quality.
Time frame: Completion of Delphi Round 3 (within six months)
What percentage of experts assigns a score of 6 or 7 on the 7-point Delphi Likert scale to each proposed CEUS quality criterion across the Delphi rounds?
For each proposed quality criterion, the percentage of participating experts assigning a rating of 6 ("agree") or 7 ("completely agree") on the 7-point Likert scale will be calculated and reported. The rating is based on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate stronger agreement that the criterion reflects adequate CEUS image quality.
Time frame: After each Delphi round (within six months)
What are the median ratings for each proposed CEUS quality criterion on the 7-point Delphi Likert scale by the end of Delphi Round 3?
Median expert rating for each proposed CEUS quality criterion. Responses marked as "Outside of my expertise" will be excluded from calculation. The rating is based on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate stronger agreement that the criterion reflects adequate CEUS image quality.
Time frame: After each Delphi round (within six months)
What are the interquartile ranges (IQRs) of expert ratings for each proposed CEUS quality criterion on the 7-point Delphi Likert scale across the Delphi rounds?
Interquartile range (IQR) of expert ratings for each proposed CEUS quality criterion. Lower IQR values indicate greater agreement among panellists. The rating is based on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate stronger agreement that the criterion reflects adequate CEUS image quality.
Time frame: After each Delphi round (within six months)
How many quality domains are incorporated into the final CEUS image and examination quality rating scale derived from the consensus-based criteria?
Total number of domains derived from consensus-based CEUS quality criteria and incorporated into the final rating scale developed in Work Package 2.
Time frame: Following completion of Work Package 2 (within six months)
What percentage of experts approve the final contrast-enhanced ultrasound image quality rating scale using binary agreement responses?
Percentage of Delphi panellists who completed all Delphi rounds and respond "Yes" to the question: "Do you agree this rating scale covers the important aspects to rate adequate CEUS image quality?" The survey is conducted using a binary response scale (Yes/No). Higher percentages indicate greater acceptance of the final rating scale.
Time frame: Final rating scale evaluation survey (within six months)
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
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.
University of Bern