Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This clinical trial will evaluate the efficacy and safety of the use of the Turtle Health Ultrasound Scanner for the acquisition of transvaginal ultrasound images by a study participant, with no previous training, in her home when guided by real-time remote supervision from a qualified and specially trained ultrasound technologist.
Those images will be assessed for their image quality by qualified Independent Readers. The study is intended to assess the ability of at home imaging performed with the Turtle Health Ultrasound Scanner to reliably produce quality images as compared to objective performance criteria set by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM).
The clinical investigation is intended to extend the findings of a published trial (SELF-HELP) to real-world performance.
Each participant will have imaging performed at-home. The at-home imaging will be conducted using the Turtle Health Ultrasound Scanner, manipulated by the participant and guided in real time by a remote ultrasound technologist that has received special training with the device. Home imaging will follow the procedures included in planned device labeling. Imaging obtained will include, at minimum, each of the specific imaging views and components defined in the "American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM) Case Study Submission Requirements: Gynecologic Ultrasound".
Imaging Scans will be assessed by at least two (2) independent readers who are physicians expert in the interpretation of transvaginal ultrasound gynecologic imaging studies. Images will have participant name redacted and each independent reader will be blinded to any participant information other than the images themselves. They will also be blinded to the assessments of the other readers. In-clinic Imaging Scans obtained from either or both of previous trials and in-clinic scans will be included in rating batches for calibration.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ultrasound Device | Other | All women who choose to enroll in the trial will undergo an at home transvaginal ultrasound guided by real-time remote supervision from a qualified and specially trained ultrasound technologist. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transvaginal ultrasound | Device | Adult women in the U.S. who are eligible for the ultrasound trial on the basis of the inclusion/exclusion criteria will complete an at home transvaginal ultrasound guided by real-time remote supervision from a qualified and specially trained ultrasound technologist. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Image Quality | Each Independent Reader will make a determination of whether each Imaging Scan is of 'diagnostic quality' or 'not diagnostic quality', in its totality, for the purpose of a diagnostic gynecological ultrasound examination. | 6 weeks |
| Net Promoter Score (NPS) | All subjects will be asked to complete the question 'How likely are you to recommend the experience to a friend or colleague?.' It is expected that a high share of patients will report a positive NPS. | 6 weeks |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| False Positives | Rate of false positives of 'significant findings' | 6 weeks |
| Performance Task of Independent Readers | Each Independent Reader will assess the suitability of the Imaging Study for use on each of ten specific imaging tasks defined by the AIUM practice parameters as required for a high quality two-dimensional gynecological ultrasound imaging study. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Woman, as defined by sex at birth
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Virtual Site | Boston | Massachusetts | 02110 | United States | ||
| Mayo Clinic |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 35271530 | Background | Chung EH, Petishnok LC, Conyers JM, Schimer DA, Vitek WS, Harris AL, Brown MA, Jolin JA, Karmon A, Styer AK. Virtual Compared With In-Clinic Transvaginal Ultrasonography for Ovarian Reserve Assessment. Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Apr 1;139(4):561-570. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004698. Epub 2022 Mar 10. | |
| 27990627 | Background |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Prospective, interventional, single arm clinical trial
Not provided
Not provided
Independent Readers reviewing Imaging Exams will be fully blinded to participant health history and exam setting.
Not provided
|
| 6 weeks |
| Box Opening | Patient opens box at correct time (not early) | 6 weeks |
| Patient Identifier | Correct patient is identified by tech and tests (not wrong patient) | 6 weeks |
| Probe Cover | Patient correctly applies probe cover and uses it successfully during the scan | 6 weeks |
| Correct Cavity | Patient places probe in correct cavity (vaginal vs. anal) | 6 weeks |
| Timely Return | Patient ships product back in a timely fashion | 6 weeks |
| Shipping Damage | Rate at which probe is damaged in transit | 6 weeks |
| Successful Return | Rate at which probe remains in working condition and able to be reprocessed | 6 weeks |
| Minor Pain or Discomfort | Rate at which subjects report minor pain, discomfort, or similarly mild symptoms lasting under 24 hours | 6 weeks |
| All Other Adverse Events | Rate at which subjects report adverse events, side effects, or other sequelae other than minor pain, discomfort, or similarly mild symptoms lasting under 24 hours | 6 weeks |
| Successful Reprocessing | Number of probes undergoing reprocessing that are reprocessed properly per internal standard operating procedures | 6 weeks |
| Ultrasound technologist satisfaction | Difference in average weekly satisfaction between in-person and virtual settings based on survey responses | 6 months |
| Ultrasound technologist availability | Estimation of weekly increase in personnel capacity enabled by device based on number of ultrasound technologists available. | 6 months |
| Ultrasound technologist safety | Implied/potential estimation of injury reduction based on survey results | 6 months |
| Correct setting of care guess rate | Including in-clinic 'control' data from previous study or from in-clinic scans with same device | 6 months |
| Sub-group exploratory endpoints: Endpoint 1 | Results from the primary end point "Image Quality" will also be reported by sub-populations of interest. The sub-populations are:
| 1 year |
| Sub-group exploratory endpoints: Endpoint 2 | Results from the primary end point "Net Promoter Score (NPS)" will also be reported by sub-populations of interest. There sub-populations are:
| 1 year |
| Rochester |
| Minnesota |
| 55902 |
| United States |
| Birch Petersen K, Maltesen T, Forman JL, Sylvest R, Pinborg A, Larsen EC, Macklon KT, Nielsen HS, Hvidman HW, Nyboe Andersen A. The Fertility Assessment and Counseling Clinic - does the concept work? A prospective 2-year follow-up study of 519 women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017 Mar;96(3):313-325. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13081. Epub 2017 Feb 3. |
| 12780419 | Background | Farquhar C, Ekeroma A, Furness S, Arroll B. A systematic review of transvaginal ultrasonography, sonohysterography and hysteroscopy for the investigation of abnormal uterine bleeding in premenopausal women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003 Jun;82(6):493-504. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2003.00191.x. |
| 42406404 | Derived | Ainsworth AJ, Sacha C, Vagios S, Doke B, Vitek W, Fridman D, Islam T, Pecoriello J, Chelliah J, Martini A, Verrilli L, Brown M, Styer A. At-Home Transvaginal Pelvic Ultrasonography and Image Quality in Premenopausal Women: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2026 Jul 1;9(7):e2621476. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.21476. |