Development of a Standardized Transabdominal Ultrasonography Protocol for Routine Pancreatic Examination

Development of a Standardized Transabdominal Ultrasonography Protocol for Routine Pancreatic Examination | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Short Report Development of a Standardized Transabdominal Ultrasonography Protocol for Routine Pancreatic Examination Luís Jesuíno de Oliveira Andrade, Gabriela Correia Matos de Oliveira, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8476119/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Transabdominal ultrasonography remains a first-line imaging modality for pancreatic evaluation, yet its diagnostic performance is limited by operator dependency, inconsistent scanning techniques, and variable documentation standards. The absence of universally adopted pancreas-specific protocols compromises examination reproducibility and quality assurance. Objective To develop and validate a standardized transabdominal ultrasonography protocol for routine pancreatic examination, focusing on scanning methodology, documentation criteria, and visualization quality. Methods A structured pancreatic ultrasonography protocol was developed based on anatomical landmarks, standardized scanning planes, patient positioning, and predefined documentation requirements. Retrospective validation compared examinations performed before and after protocol implementation, assessing pancreatic segment visualization, examination duration, and documentation completeness. Inter-observer agreement was evaluated across operators with varying levels of experience. Results Protocol-adherent examinations demonstrated significantly improved visualization of pancreatic head, body, and tail segments, particularly through optimized acoustic window utilization and multi-positional scanning. Documentation completeness increased markedly, with consistent reporting of pancreatic duct diameter and standardized measurements. Examination duration increased minimally, without clinical workflow disruption. Inter-observer reliability improved substantially for pancreatic visualization grading, with the greatest benefit observed among less experienced operators. Conclusion The proposed standardized protocol enhances image quality, reproducibility, and reporting consistency in transabdominal pancreatic ultrasonography. Its adoption represents a practical, low-cost strategy for quality improvement and harmonization of routine pancreatic imaging. Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging Pancreatic ultrasonography Transabdominal ultrasound Standardized protocol Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 INTRODUCTION Ultrasonography has established itself as an indispensable diagnostic tool in contemporary medical practice, transcending its traditional role in obstetrics and cardiology to become a cornerstone of general medicine evaluation. The modality's portability, real-time imaging capabilities, and absence of ionizing radiation have facilitated its integration into emergency departments, outpatient clinics, and bedside assessments across multiple specialties. 1 , 2 Point-of-care ultrasound has particularly revolutionized clinical decision-making, enabling immediate evaluation of acute abdominal complaints, guidance for interventional procedures, and screening for occult pathology in asymptomatic populations. 3 As healthcare systems increasingly prioritize cost-effective diagnostic strategies, ultrasound's favorable economic profile and widespread availability position it as a first-line imaging modality for numerous clinical scenarios. Abdominal ultrasonography encompasses diverse technical approaches and examination protocols that vary according to anatomical targets and clinical indications. Established guidelines for hepatic, renal, and gallbladder imaging provide structured frameworks that ensure comprehensive evaluation and diagnostic consistency. 4 The American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM), European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB), and similar international organizations have published detailed standards addressing transducer selection, patient positioning, systematic scanning planes, and documentation requirements for major abdominal organs. 5 These protocols emphasize reproducible techniques that minimize operator variability and facilitate quality assurance monitoring. Recent advancements including contrast-enhanced ultrasound, elastography, and fusion imaging have further expanded the technical repertoire available for abdominal examination, though their application requires additional standardization to ensure optimal implementation across clinical settings. 6 Despite the existence of comprehensive imaging protocols for pancreatic evaluation using computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), including specific guidelines for pancreatic protocol CT and MRI cholangiopancreatography, comparable standardization remains notably absent for transabdominal pancreatic ultrasonography. While cross-sectional imaging modalities benefit from detailed technical parameters governing contrast administration timing, slice thickness, and reconstruction algorithms, ultrasound practitioners lack equivalent evidence-based frameworks for pancreatic examination. This disparity is particularly significant given that ultrasound frequently serves as the initial imaging study for suspected pancreatic pathology, yet its diagnostic performance demonstrates substantial inter-institutional and inter-operator variability that could potentially be mitigated through protocol standardization. The present study aims to develop a transabdominal ultrasound protocol specifically designed for routine pancreatic examination, addressing this critical gap in imaging standardization. By establishing evidence-based criteria for patient preparation, defining optimal technical parameters, and implementing measurable quality assurance metrics, this protocol seeks to enhance diagnostic consistency and examination completeness in pancreatic ultrasonography across diverse clinical practice environments. METHODS Study Design and Protocol Development Framework This methodological study was conducted to establish a comprehensive, evidence-based transabdominal ultrasound protocol for routine pancreatic examination. The protocol development followed a systematic approach incorporating extensive literature review, expert consensus methodology, and integration of established quality assurance frameworks from analogous imaging modalities. The study was designed to address three primary domains: patient preparation optimization, technical scanning parameters standardization, and quality metric establishment for examination adequacy assessment. Literature Review and Evidence Synthesis A comprehensive literature search was performed across multiple electronic databases including PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, covering publications from January 2000 through December 2024. Search strategies utilized medical subject headings (MeSH) and keywords encompassing "pancreatic ultrasonography," "transabdominal ultrasound," "pancreatic imaging protocol," "ultrasound quality assurance," "patient preparation," and "pancreatic visualization." Inclusion criteria encompassed original research articles, systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines, and technical standards published in peer-reviewed journals addressing pancreatic ultrasound technique, diagnostic performance, and quality benchmarks. Studies focusing exclusively on endoscopic ultrasound, contrast-enhanced techniques, or pediatric populations were excluded to maintain focus on routine transabdominal examination in adult patients. Retrieved articles underwent quality assessment using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework to establish evidence levels for subsequent protocol recommendations. Analysis of Existing Imaging Guidelines and Standards A systematic review of current imaging guidelines was conducted to identify transferable quality assurance principles and standardization methodologies applicable to pancreatic ultrasonography. Documents reviewed included practice parameters from the AIUM, EFSUMB guidelines, radiological society consensus statements, and institutional protocols from academic medical centers with established ultrasound quality programs. Particular attention was directed toward pancreatic imaging protocols for CT and MRI to extract relevant concepts regarding anatomical coverage requirements, measurement standardization, and documentation standards that could be adapted to ultrasonographic evaluation. Cross-sectional imaging protocols provided valuable frameworks for systematic organ assessment, terminology standardization, and reporting structure that informed corresponding ultrasound protocol development. Additionally, quality metrics established for other ultrasound applications, including hepatic and renal imaging protocols, were analyzed to identify validated approaches to visualization scoring, technical quality assessment, and examination completeness evaluation. Patient Preparation Protocol Formulation The patient preparation component was developed through systematic analysis of published studies evaluating factors affecting pancreatic visualization quality. Variables examined included fasting duration, hydration status, timing of examination relative to meals, postural modifications, and pharmacological adjuncts for bowel gas reduction. Evidence from comparative studies assessing visualization rates across different preparation strategies was synthesized to establish optimal pre-examination requirements. Specific attention was directed toward practical implementation considerations, recognizing that excessively restrictive preparation protocols might reduce patient compliance or examination accessibility. The resulting preparation guidelines incorporated tiered recommendations distinguishing between essential requirements for adequate examination and supplementary measures that might enhance visualization in challenging cases. Special populations including diabetic patients requiring modified fasting protocols and emergency presentations necessitating abbreviated preparation were addressed through supplementary guidance statements. Technical Scanning Parameters Standardization Technical protocol components were systematically developed addressing transducer selection, patient positioning, scanning planes, anatomical landmarks, and image optimization techniques. Transducer specifications were defined based on evidence correlating probe frequency and footprint dimensions with pancreatic visualization success across different body morphotypes. Standard patient positioning protocols were established for systematic pancreatic examination, incorporating supine, right lateral decubitus, and upright positions as clinically indicated. Mandatory scanning planes were defined to ensure comprehensive pancreatic coverage, including transverse and longitudinal imaging through standardized anatomical windows utilizing the liver, spleen, and stomach as acoustic windows. Image optimization parameters addressed focal zone positioning, depth settings, gain adjustment, harmonic imaging applications, and techniques for managing acoustic shadowing from bowel gas. Documentation requirements specified minimum image acquisition standards including representative views of pancreatic head, body, and tail with measurement protocols for pancreatic duct diameter and parenchymal dimensions. Standardized nomenclature for anatomical structures and pathological findings was established based on current radiological terminology to facilitate consistent reporting and interdisciplinary communication. Quality Assurance Metrics Development Quantifiable quality metrics were established to enable objective assessment of examination adequacy and facilitate ongoing quality improvement initiatives. Metrics were categorized into technical quality indicators and diagnostic completeness measures. Technical quality parameters included visualization score systems for individual pancreatic segments, image quality ratings addressing resolution and artifact presence, and procedural compliance with protocol specifications. Diagnostic completeness metrics encompassed documentation of all required anatomical structures, measurement completion rates, and systematic evaluation of secondary findings including peripancreatic vessels, pancreatic duct, and adjacent organs. A composite quality score was developed integrating multiple individual metrics to provide summary assessment of overall examination quality. Threshold values for acceptable performance were established through analysis of benchmark data from high-volume centers and literature-reported standards regarding minimum criteria for clinical adequacy. The quality metric framework was designed with both retrospective audit applications and real-time quality monitoring capabilities to support diverse quality improvement implementations. Protocol Validation Strategy The developed protocol underwent preliminary validation through retrospective application to archived pancreatic ultrasound examinations. A sample of studies performed under standard clinical conditions was reassessed by blinded reviewers applying the proposed protocol criteria to evaluate inter-observer agreement for quality metrics and assess feasibility of retrospective quality scoring. Additionally, the protocol was implemented prospectively in a pilot cohort to identify practical challenges in real-world application and refine procedural elements based on sonographer feedback. Validation metrics included protocol adherence rates, time requirements for examination completion, and comparative analysis of visualization success rates between protocol-adherent and non-standardized examinations. Subgroup analyses examined protocol performance across varying patient characteristics including body mass index categories, presence of bowel gas interference, and timing of examination to identify factors requiring protocol modification or supplementary technical guidance. Statistical Considerations Inter-observer agreement for quality metrics was quantified using Cohen's kappa coefficient for categorical variables and intraclass correlation coefficients for continuous measurements. Visualization success rates across different patient characteristics were analyzed to identify factors requiring protocol modification or supplementary guidance. Comparative analyses between protocol-adherent and standard examinations employed chi-square tests for categorical outcomes and independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables depending on data distribution. All statistical analyses were performed using R software version 4.3.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria), a freely available open-source statistical computing environment. Descriptive statistics characterized the distribution of quality scores and identified performance benchmarks for future quality assurance applications. Results were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05, with 95% confidence intervals reported for relevant effect estimates. Ethical Considerations This study was designed as a methodological investigation focused on protocol development and technical standardization rather than human subjects research. The protocol formulation relied exclusively on systematic review of published literature, analysis of existing imaging guidelines, and evaluation of technical parameters without involving prospective patient recruitment, experimental interventions, or collection of identifiable patient data. The retrospective validation component utilized only de-identified archival imaging studies as part of routine quality assurance activities, with all patient identifiers removed prior to analysis. According to institutional research ethics policies and applicable regulatory frameworks, quality improvement initiatives aimed at optimizing existing clinical procedures through technical standardization do not constitute human subjects research requiring formal ethics committee review when no identifiable patient information is accessed or analyzed. Furthermore, the study involved no deviation from standard clinical care, no additional risk to patients, and no collection of personal health information beyond routine clinical documentation. Therefore, submission to an institutional review board or research ethics committee was not required for this methodological study. All procedures adhered to institutional quality assurance protocols and complied with applicable privacy regulations governing the use of de-identified health information for quality improvement purposes. RESULTS Literature Search Outcomes and Study Selection The systematic literature search yielded 2,847 potentially relevant articles. After removing 612 duplicates and screening 2,235 titles and abstracts, 342 articles underwent full-text evaluation. Ultimately, 156 studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 87 original research articles, 34 systematic reviews, 21 clinical guidelines, and 14 technical standards documents (Fig. 1 ). Fasting duration of 6–8 hours optimized pancreatic visualization, with shorter periods significantly reducing success rates. Transducer frequency selection proved critical: 5–9 MHz for body mass index (BMI) 30 kg/m². Harmonic imaging improved visualization in 65–80% of examinations. Complete pancreatic visualization occurred in 70–85% of cases at specialized centers vs. 50–65% in community settings. Body mass index represented the most influential factor affecting visualization quality. GRADE assessment revealed predominantly moderate to low-quality evidence, with randomized controlled trials largely absent (Fig. 2 ). Analysis of Existing Imaging Guidelines and Standards Systematic review of professional society guidelines identified comprehensive quality standards for hepatic (AIUM Practice Parameter 2022) 6 and renal ultrasonography, but no equivalent pancreatic-specific protocols existed. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria for pancreatic CT and MRI provided valuable frameworks, emphasizing tri-phasic contrast protocols and systematic segmental assessment. EFSUMB recommendations for abdominal ultrasound mentioned pancreatic evaluation briefly without detailed technical specifications. Analysis of 12 institutional protocols from academic centers revealed inconsistent approaches: fasting requirements ranged from 4–12 hours, transducer selection varied widely, and documentation standards lacked uniformity. Quality metrics from hepatic elastography protocols (Ferraioli et al., 2018) 7 offered validated visualization scoring methodologies potentially adaptable to pancreatic imaging, demonstrating feasibility of standardized quality assessment in challenging abdominal examinations. Patient Preparation Protocol Formulation Analysis of 23 comparative studies established 6–8 hour fasting as optimal, yielding 15–20% improvement in visualization vs. 4-hour protocols. Three randomized trials examining pre-examination hydration (400–500 mL) showed conflicting results, with benefit observed only in 40% of patients. Right lateral decubitus positioning for 15 minutes improved tail visualization in two prospective studies (n = 187 combined). Simethicone administration demonstrated statistically significant benefits in four of seven trials, though effect sizes remained modest (visualization improvement 8–12%). Modified protocols for diabetic patients and emergency situations were extrapolated from general fasting guidelines given absence of pancreas-specific data. Technical Scanning Parameters Standardization Protocol development synthesized findings from 34 studies correlating transducer frequency with body habitus, establishing BMI-stratified recommendations: 5–9 MHz for BMI 30 kg/m². Harmonic imaging improved visualization in 12 of 15 comparative studies (pooled improvement 22%). Standardized scanning incorporated epigastric transverse/longitudinal planes using left hepatic lobe window, plus left lateral approach via splenic window for tail assessment. Documentation standards mandated three-segment visualization with pancreatic duct measurement at body level and head anteroposterior diameter measurement in standardized transverse plane. Quality Assurance Metrics Development A composite quality scoring system was developed incorporating segment-specific visualization grades (adequate/limited/inadequate for head, body, tail) and technical parameters. Analysis of benchmark data from seven high-volume centers (n = 3,847 examinations) established performance thresholds: ≥70% adequate visualization rate, ≥ 85% anatomical landmark identification, and ≥ 90% documentation completeness. Inter-observer reliability testing demonstrated substantial agreement for visualization scoring (κ = 0.72) and moderate agreement for image quality assessment (κ = 0.58). The framework enabled retrospective audit of 15% examination samples while supporting real-time quality monitoring through electronic reporting templates with automated completeness verification. Protocol Validation Strategy Retrospective validation assessed 284 archived pancreatic examinations, with blinded reviewers applying protocol criteria to 142 studies performed before protocol implementation and 142 subsequent protocol-adherent examinations. Protocol adherence averaged 87.3% for preparation requirements and 91.2% for technical parameters. Mean examination time increased modestly from 8.4 ± 2.1 to 9.7 ± 1.8 minutes (p = 0.041). Complete pancreatic visualization improved significantly in protocol-adherent examinations (68.3% vs. 54.2%, p = 0.012), particularly for tail segment assessment (61.3% vs. 45.1%, p = 0.006). Subgroup analysis revealed protocol benefits were most pronounced in patients with BMI 25–35 kg/m² (visualization improvement 18.7%), while patients with BMI > 35 kg/m² showed minimal improvement (4.2%). Documentation completeness increased substantially from 71.4% to 94.6% (p < 0.001). Prospective pilot implementation (n = 96 examinations, 4 sonographers) identified practical workflow challenges requiring minor protocol modifications, including simplified documentation templates and BMI-specific scanning sequence recommendations. Standardized Protocol for Transabdominal Pancreatic Ultrasonography Patients should fast 6–8 hours, extended to 10 hours for BMI > 30 kg/m². Transducer selection follows BMI stratification: 5–9 MHz for BMI 30 kg/m². Tissue harmonic imaging should be activated when available. Initial supine scanning utilizes epigastric transverse and longitudinal planes through the left hepatic lobe window for head and body assessment. Left lateral decubitus positioning with splenic window approach optimizes tail visualization. Documentation must include representative images of all three pancreatic segments, pancreatic duct diameter measurement at body level, and head anteroposterior diameter. Anatomical landmarks including splenic vein and superior mesenteric vessels should be systematically identified and documented (Fig. 3 ). DISCUSSION Our standardized transabdominal pancreatic ultrasound protocol addresses a critical void in abdominal imaging guidelines, offering a reproducible, evidence-informed framework that enhances diagnostic reliability. By establishing evidence-based technical parameters and quality metrics, this work provides an important framework to reduce diagnostic variability and enhance the reliability of pancreatic ultrasonography as a pivotal first-line imaging modality, thereby elevating its clinical utility and reproducibility across diverse practice settings. A systematic analysis of current professional guidelines, such as those from the AIUM and EFSUMB, reveals comprehensive standards for hepatic and renal ultrasonography but a conspicuous absence of pancreas-specific protocols. 8 , 9 This finding starkly contrasts with the detailed technical frameworks available for pancreatic CT and MRI, highlighting the standardization gap our study aimed to fill. The inconsistency observed in institutional protocols further underscores the pressing need for the unified approach we have developed. Our findings confirm this gap and respond by adapting cross-sectional imaging principles to ultrasound, ensuring systematic coverage and structured reporting, fostering uniform documentation absent in current abdominal ultrasound recommendations. Optimal patient preparation for transabdominal pancreatic ultrasonography centers on minimizing gastric content and duodenal gas to enhance acoustic window clarity. Current evidence supports a prolonged fasting protocol with pre-examination water administration period as critical for adequate pancreatic visualization, with shorter durations demonstrably reducing image quality, 10,11 though recent randomized controlled trials challenge universal applicability. 12 Abu-Yousef et al. 13 demonstrated substantially enhanced pancreatic tail visualization utilizing water loading combined with simethicone and positional maneuvers compared to isolated hydration. Okaniwa et al. 14 emphasized multi-positional scanning techniques including right lateral decubitus for optimizing tail assessment. Marsico et al. 15 identified anthropometric parameters, particularly waist circumference, as predictive biomarkers for simethicone therapeutic response. Our results established the following standardization for pancreatic ultrasound examination: prolonged fasting periods yield superior visualization compared to abbreviated protocols; pre-examination hydration demonstrates variable effectiveness across individuals, reflecting physiological heterogeneity; lateral decubitus positioning consistently enhances visualization of the posterior pancreatic segment; and simethicone confers statistically significant, but clinically modest, benefits, particularly in patients with higher anthropometric indices. Current evidence literature underscores BMI-stratified transducer frequency selection utilizing convex probes, 16 with harmonic imaging demonstrating superior visualization compared to fundamental B-mode imaging for pancreatic lesion characterization. 17 Standardized scanning protocols emphasize epigastric transverse/longitudinal planes via hepatic acoustic windows and intercostal approaches for tail segments. 18 Documentation standards mandate pancreatic duct diameter assessment at body level and anteroposterior head measurements in standardized transverse planes. 19 Our development protocol, which synthesizes evidence-based correlations between transducer frequency and body habitus, aligns with current literature demonstrating that harmonic imaging enhances the delineation of parenchymal contours and internal architectural details. The standardized multi-window scanning approach, incorporating hepatic and splenic acoustic windows, and the mandatory three-segment documentation requirements are consistent with established international quality benchmarks for pancreatic ultrasonography. Literature establishes composite scoring systems for transabdominal pancreatic ultrasonography incorporating segment-specific visualization assessments. 20 International guidelines recommend documentation completeness thresholds and anatomical landmark identification benchmarks for transabdominal pancreatic imaging quality assurance. 21 Inter-observer reliability studies demonstrate substantial agreement for transabdominal ultrasound pancreatic visualization grading, though concordance varies across parenchymal echo-texture characterization. 22 Structured reporting templates with automated verification facilitate systematic quality monitoring in transabdominal ultrasound practice. 23 Our quality framework integrates structured visualization grading, technical fidelity checks, and electronic verification tools, thereby translating validated quality methodologies from hepatic ultrasonography into a clinically operational format for pancreatic ultrasonography. Literature emphasizes retrospective validation methodologies comparing pre-implementation vs. protocol-adherent examinations for transabdominal pancreatic ultrasonography. 24 , 25 Standardized scanning approaches facilitate pattern recognition and ensure complete pancreatic assessment, particularly benefiting less experienced operators. 26 Protocol implementation minimally increases examination duration while substantially improving visualization quality, especially in optimal body habitus ranges. 27 Documentation completeness represents a critical quality metric in pancreatic imaging protocols. 28 Our retrospective validation compared archived examinations with assessments by blinded reviewers. The observed protocol adherence rates and the modest increases in examination duration underscore the practical feasibility of standardized approaches. Improvements in visualization, particularly for the tail segment, highlight the protocol-driven enhancement in diagnostic completeness. Stratified benefit analysis by body mass index aligns with the existing literature identifying obesity as the primary limiting factor in pancreatic sonographic visualization. The marked gains in documentation completeness reflect the contemporary emphasis on structured reporting models to support diagnostic accuracy and quality assurance. CONCLUSION This study demonstrates that a standardized transabdominal pancreatic ultrasonography protocol significantly improves pancreatic visualization, documentation completeness, and examination reproducibility without clinically relevant time penalties. Its implementation supports quality assurance, facilitates operator training, and provides a robust framework for routine pancreatic assessment across diverse clinical settings. Declarations Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported. References Bhagra A, Tierney DM, Sekiguchi H, Soni NJ (2016) Point-of-Care Ultrasonography for Primary Care Physicians and General Internists. Mayo Clin Proc. ;91(12):1811–1827. 10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.08.023 Arienti V, Camaggi V (2011) Clinical applications of bedside ultrasonography in internal and emergency medicine. Intern Emerg Med 6(3):195–201. 10.1007/s11739-010-0424-3 Li JJ, Boivin Z, Bhalodkar S, Liu R (2024) Point of Care Abdominal Ultrasound. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 45(1):11–21. 10.1053/j.sult.2023.12.003 Adams RB (2022) Ultrasound scanning techniques. Surg Open Sci 10:182–207. 10.1016/j.sopen.2022.09.002 Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI, Cosgrove DO, Kudo M, Nolsøe CP et al (2013) Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver–update 2012: a WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultraschall Med 34(1):11–29. 10.1055/s-0032-1325499 The AIUM Practice Parameter for the (2022) Performance of an Ultrasound Examination of the Abdomen and/or Retroperitoneum. J Ultrasound Med 41(4):E1–E8. 10.1002/jum.15874 Ferraioli G, Wong VW, Castera L, Berzigotti A, Sporea I, Dietrich CF et al (2018) Liver Ultrasound Elastography: An Update to the World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology Guidelines and Recommendations. Ultrasound Med Biol 44(12):2419–2440. 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.07.008 Dietrich CF, Nolsøe CP, Barr RG, Berzigotti A, Burns PN, Cantisani V et al (2020) Guidelines and Good Clinical Practice Recommendations for Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the Liver-Update 2020 WFUMB in Cooperation with EFSUMB, AFSUMB, AIUM, and FLAUS. Ultrasound Med Biol 46(10):2579–2604. 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.04.030 Sidhu PS, Cantisani V, Dietrich CF, Gilja OH, Saftoiu A, Bartels E et al (2018) The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations for the Clinical Practice of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in Non-Hepatic Applications: Update 2017 (Long Version). Ultraschall Med. ;39(2):e2-e44. English. 10.1055/a-0586-1107 Meier J, Lucius C, Möller K, Jenssen C, Zervides C, Gschmack AM et al (2024) Pancreatic ultrasound: An update of measurements, reference values, and variations of the pancreas. Ultrasound Int Open 10:a23899085. 10.1055/a-2389-9085 Matsumoto K, Kakite S, Sugihara T, Yamashita E, Miyoshi K, Onoyama T et al (2024) Fusion Imaging Objectively Demonstrates Improved Pancreas Visualization through Manipulation Techniques: A Prospective Interventional Study. Intern Med 63(20):2729–2737. 10.2169/internalmedicine.2822-23 Schreiner M, Thien H, Braasch T, Hoffmann I, Wesemann U, Merkel D et al (2025) The influence of fasting on abdominal ultrasound image quality - a randomized controlled trial. Abdom Radiol (NY) 50(11):5511–5519. 10.1007/s00261-025-04947-3 Abu-Yousef MM, El-Zein Y, Improved (2000) US visualization of the pancreatic tail with simethicone, water, and patient rotation. Radiology 217(3):780–785. 10.1148/radiology.217.3.r00dc37780 Okaniwa S (2020) How Does Ultrasound Manage Pancreatic Diseases? Ultrasound Findings and Scanning Maneuvers. Gut Liver 14(1):37–46. 10.5009/gnl18567 Marsico M, Gabbani T, Casseri T, Biagini MR (2016) Factors Predictive of Improved Abdominal Ultrasound Visualization after Oral Administration of Simethicone. Ultrasound Med Biol 42(11):2532–2537. 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.06.024 Yaraş S, Özdoğan O, Sezgin O (2025) The Triage Role of Transabdominal Ultrasonography (TAUS) in the Diagnostic Management of Pancreatic and Distal Biliary Pathologies: A Comparative Efficacy Analysis with Endoscopic Ultrasonography (EUS). Diagnostics (Basel) 15(23):2955. 10.3390/diagnostics15232955 Hohl C, Schmidt T, Haage P, Honnef D, Blaum M, Staatz G et al (2004) Phase-inversion tissue harmonic imaging compared with conventional B-mode ultrasound in the evaluation of pancreatic lesions. Eur Radiol 14(6):1109–1117. 10.1007/s00330-003-2191-2 Devi G, Iqbal J, Kang M, Bhasin DK, Gupta R (2018) Tissue Harmonic Imaging Compared with Conventional B-Mode Ultrasound, Biphasic CECT and Tissue Diagnosis in Evaluation of Pancreatic Masses. Annals Int Med Dent Res 4(3):19–23 Sirli R, Sporea I (2010) Ultrasound examination of the normal pancreas. Med Ultrason 12(1):62–65 Engjom T, Sangnes DA, Havre RF, Erchinger F, Pham KD, Haldorsen IS et al (2017) Diagnostic Accuracy of Transabdominal Ultrasound in Chronic Pancreatitis. Ultrasound Med Biol 43(4):735–743. 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.11.020 Domagk D, Oppong KW, Aabakken L, Czakó L, Gyökeres T, Manes G et al (2018) Performance measures for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. United Eur Gastroenterol J 6(10):1448–1460. 10.1177/2050640618808157 Wang B, Wang Y, Chu Y, Zhang K, Liu L, Zhang K et al (2025) AbVLM-Q: intelligent quality assessment for abdominal ultrasound standard planes via vision-language modeling. BMC Med Imaging 25(1):344. 10.1186/s12880-025-01885-w Piscaglia F, Nolsøe C, Dietrich CF, Cosgrove DO, Gilja OH, Bachmann Nielsen M et al (2012) The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Practice of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS): update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall Med 33(1):33–59. 10.1055/s-0031-1281676 Huang J, Yang J, Ding J, Zhou J, Yang R, Li J et al (2022) Development and validation of an ultrasound-based prediction model for differentiating between malignant and benign solid pancreatic lesions. Eur Radiol 32(12):8296–8305. 10.1007/s00330-022-08930-0 Marín-Serrano E, Barbado Cano A, Fernández Martos R, Abadía Barno M, Olveira Martín A, Martín Arranz MD (2024) Protocol for acquisition of images and measurement of transabdominal ultrasound pancreatic two-dimensional shear wave elastography (2D-SWE). Gastroenterol Hepatol 47(9):502198 English, Spanish. 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2024.502198 Adams RB (2022) Ultrasound scanning techniques. Surg Open Sci 10:182–207. 10.1016/j.sopen.2022.09.002 Lucius C, Meier J, Gschmack A, Zervides C, Jenssen C, Dong Y et al (2025) Ultrasound of the spleen - an update on measurements, reference values, and influencing factors. A systematic review. Med Ultrason 27(2):185–194. 10.11152/mu-4436 Ćwik G (2013) Standards of the Polish Ultrasound Society - update. Pancreas examination. J Ultrason 13(53):167–177. 10.15557/JoU.2013.0017 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8476119","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Short Report","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":567041364,"identity":"6c484d5e-82c2-4c8a-ade3-aa8fba563d67","order_by":0,"name":"Luís Jesuíno de Oliveira Andrade","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7714-0330","institution":"Department of Health, Santa Cruz State University, Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil.","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Luís","middleName":"Jesuíno de Oliveira","lastName":"Andrade","suffix":""},{"id":567041365,"identity":"6002e325-cadc-4a2e-839b-5d14250a1772","order_by":1,"name":"Gabriela Correia Matos de Oliveira","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3447-3143","institution":"José Silveira Foundation, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gabriela","middleName":"Correia Matos","lastName":"de Oliveira","suffix":""},{"id":567041366,"identity":"c77d0ab4-1707-4a73-b1bd-87162ca146f6","order_by":2,"name":"Adriana Malta de Figueiredo","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0068-9120","institution":"Diagnostic Imaging Unit, HBLEM, Itabuna, Bahia, Brazil.","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Adriana","middleName":"Malta","lastName":"de Figueiredo","suffix":""},{"id":567041367,"identity":"ad0aa4a2-e0fb-4e6a-a546-f3483926977e","order_by":3,"name":"Luís Matos de Oliveira","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4854-6910","institution":"Department of Health, Santa Cruz State University, Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil.","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Luís","middleName":"Matos","lastName":"de Oliveira","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-29 23:19:48","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8476119/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8476119/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":99794199,"identity":"11e3c785-699b-47ed-bfb0-fe1e13ef283d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 13:34:13","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":237824,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"DevelopmentofaStandardizedTransabdominalUltrasonographyProtocolforRoutinePancreaticExamination.RSquare.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8476119/v1/0019e2d08f317a1f0322f2e2.docx"},{"id":99594970,"identity":"08130aff-8d7a-4f85-b33e-b131e8455313","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-06 09:22:25","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":342,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs8476119.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8476119/v1/b7a86206bd36c5529d1ff380.json"},{"id":99594968,"identity":"46826887-7d7e-4072-a030-f1edb80fc68e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-06 09:22:25","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":89783,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs84761190enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8476119/v1/60855e36f97ae6f081bc0e0d.xml"},{"id":99594966,"identity":"2699484a-b989-4526-a1af-4ed6c43bef14","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-06 09:22:25","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":37173,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8476119/v1/cfd6376c4e6c57ac3ef94560.png"},{"id":99594962,"identity":"668ca853-c7a0-46d4-91a8-247a1251f2f6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-06 09:22:25","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":42963,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8476119/v1/a130fd3a236f10b4f31ced0d.png"},{"id":99792937,"identity":"be6f6e03-d036-45f6-9a39-37c6e54cb560","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 13:28:54","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":121171,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8476119/v1/b76530391cc3e5da63c2bc5c.png"},{"id":99792729,"identity":"345508a0-fb53-4888-b889-ff4b7e9f3bc9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 13:25:26","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":13696,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8476119/v1/848d38e32015326168ac7371.png"},{"id":99792175,"identity":"b1ef04cf-9ff2-44cc-8e35-4ecc82572a66","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 13:15:43","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":15343,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8476119/v1/b5969d44848f00e5d2ae7e0c.png"},{"id":99594969,"identity":"f98fd858-8c69-41c9-8e84-d1ab5e7717c2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-06 09:22:25","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":26989,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8476119/v1/a74ef19263e797a824874ff4.png"},{"id":99594972,"identity":"9a665839-456d-44b0-802d-f1687480a2a9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-06 09:22:25","extension":"xml","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":85311,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"rs84761190structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8476119/v1/2a9b3819fb0e9ef8ed44bc8c.xml"},{"id":99594971,"identity":"99befdb1-b663-4a76-838e-e5863de11995","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-06 09:22:25","extension":"html","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":98785,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8476119/v1/2613fe93798ee74353606f4a.html"},{"id":99594959,"identity":"99956fb1-3f99-4954-bdbe-cec057e9d722","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-06 09:22:25","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":31470,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePRISMA Flow Diagram - Literature Search and Study Selection\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"RSqFig11500dpi.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8476119/v1/80c0400ada2566a3d6416958.jpg"},{"id":99594961,"identity":"a8aed2a8-5d7d-4955-9510-0f847e961467","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-06 09:22:25","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":43087,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePancreatic Visualization Success Rates by Segment and Clinical Setting\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eData synthesized from 156 studies. Specialized centers: academic medical centers and high-volume facilities. Community settings: general radiology practices and community hospitals.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"RSqFig21500dpi.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8476119/v1/a9982669294ca0c58abf4ec7.jpg"},{"id":99793661,"identity":"bb93a1a9-498c-45ba-8b96-5a9cbae83e4e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 13:32:08","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":31298,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStandardized transabdominal pancreatic ultrasonography. A: Pancreatic head in epigastric transverse plane with anteroposterior diameter measurement. B: Pancreatic body with splenic vein and main pancreatic duct measured. C: Pancreatic tail visualized via splenic acoustic window in left lateral decubitus.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource\u003c/strong\u003e: Study results\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"RSqFig31500dpi.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8476119/v1/9c98a42b3a608e05ef99cfc0.jpg"},{"id":99804310,"identity":"ef5273c1-0fa6-4dda-bff4-fcc67fd842af","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 14:13:03","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":819281,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8476119/v1/07d48753-c72b-4a2c-8c05-9524c59c1c24.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDevelopment of a Standardized Transabdominal Ultrasonography Protocol for Routine Pancreatic Examination\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eUltrasonography has established itself as an indispensable diagnostic tool in contemporary medical practice, transcending its traditional role in obstetrics and cardiology to become a cornerstone of general medicine evaluation. The modality's portability, real-time imaging capabilities, and absence of ionizing radiation have facilitated its integration into emergency departments, outpatient clinics, and bedside assessments across multiple specialties.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Point-of-care ultrasound has particularly revolutionized clinical decision-making, enabling immediate evaluation of acute abdominal complaints, guidance for interventional procedures, and screening for occult pathology in asymptomatic populations.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e As healthcare systems increasingly prioritize cost-effective diagnostic strategies, ultrasound's favorable economic profile and widespread availability position it as a first-line imaging modality for numerous clinical scenarios.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbdominal ultrasonography encompasses diverse technical approaches and examination protocols that vary according to anatomical targets and clinical indications. Established guidelines for hepatic, renal, and gallbladder imaging provide structured frameworks that ensure comprehensive evaluation and diagnostic consistency.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e The American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM), European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB), and similar international organizations have published detailed standards addressing transducer selection, patient positioning, systematic scanning planes, and documentation requirements for major abdominal organs.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e These protocols emphasize reproducible techniques that minimize operator variability and facilitate quality assurance monitoring. Recent advancements including contrast-enhanced ultrasound, elastography, and fusion imaging have further expanded the technical repertoire available for abdominal examination, though their application requires additional standardization to ensure optimal implementation across clinical settings.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Despite the existence of comprehensive imaging protocols for pancreatic evaluation using computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), including specific guidelines for pancreatic protocol CT and MRI cholangiopancreatography, comparable standardization remains notably absent for transabdominal pancreatic ultrasonography. While cross-sectional imaging modalities benefit from detailed technical parameters governing contrast administration timing, slice thickness, and reconstruction algorithms, ultrasound practitioners lack equivalent evidence-based frameworks for pancreatic examination. This disparity is particularly significant given that ultrasound frequently serves as the initial imaging study for suspected pancreatic pathology, yet its diagnostic performance demonstrates substantial inter-institutional and inter-operator variability that could potentially be mitigated through protocol standardization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present study aims to develop a transabdominal ultrasound protocol specifically designed for routine pancreatic examination, addressing this critical gap in imaging standardization. By establishing evidence-based criteria for patient preparation, defining optimal technical parameters, and implementing measurable quality assurance metrics, this protocol seeks to enhance diagnostic consistency and examination completeness in pancreatic ultrasonography across diverse clinical practice environments.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy Design and Protocol Development Framework\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis methodological study was conducted to establish a comprehensive, evidence-based transabdominal ultrasound protocol for routine pancreatic examination. The protocol development followed a systematic approach incorporating extensive literature review, expert consensus methodology, and integration of established quality assurance frameworks from analogous imaging modalities. The study was designed to address three primary domains: patient preparation optimization, technical scanning parameters standardization, and quality metric establishment for examination adequacy assessment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLiterature Review and Evidence Synthesis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA comprehensive literature search was performed across multiple electronic databases including PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, covering publications from January 2000 through December 2024. Search strategies utilized medical subject headings (MeSH) and keywords encompassing \"pancreatic ultrasonography,\" \"transabdominal ultrasound,\" \"pancreatic imaging protocol,\" \"ultrasound quality assurance,\" \"patient preparation,\" and \"pancreatic visualization.\" Inclusion criteria encompassed original research articles, systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines, and technical standards published in peer-reviewed journals addressing pancreatic ultrasound technique, diagnostic performance, and quality benchmarks. Studies focusing exclusively on endoscopic ultrasound, contrast-enhanced techniques, or pediatric populations were excluded to maintain focus on routine transabdominal examination in adult patients. Retrieved articles underwent quality assessment using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework to establish evidence levels for subsequent protocol recommendations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAnalysis of Existing Imaging Guidelines and Standards\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e A systematic review of current imaging guidelines was conducted to identify transferable quality assurance principles and standardization methodologies applicable to pancreatic ultrasonography. Documents reviewed included practice parameters from the AIUM, EFSUMB guidelines, radiological society consensus statements, and institutional protocols from academic medical centers with established ultrasound quality programs. Particular attention was directed toward pancreatic imaging protocols for CT and MRI to extract relevant concepts regarding anatomical coverage requirements, measurement standardization, and documentation standards that could be adapted to ultrasonographic evaluation. Cross-sectional imaging protocols provided valuable frameworks for systematic organ assessment, terminology standardization, and reporting structure that informed corresponding ultrasound protocol development. Additionally, quality metrics established for other ultrasound applications, including hepatic and renal imaging protocols, were analyzed to identify validated approaches to visualization scoring, technical quality assessment, and examination completeness evaluation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePatient Preparation Protocol Formulation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe patient preparation component was developed through systematic analysis of published studies evaluating factors affecting pancreatic visualization quality. Variables examined included fasting duration, hydration status, timing of examination relative to meals, postural modifications, and pharmacological adjuncts for bowel gas reduction. Evidence from comparative studies assessing visualization rates across different preparation strategies was synthesized to establish optimal pre-examination requirements. Specific attention was directed toward practical implementation considerations, recognizing that excessively restrictive preparation protocols might reduce patient compliance or examination accessibility. The resulting preparation guidelines incorporated tiered recommendations distinguishing between essential requirements for adequate examination and supplementary measures that might enhance visualization in challenging cases. Special populations including diabetic patients requiring modified fasting protocols and emergency presentations necessitating abbreviated preparation were addressed through supplementary guidance statements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTechnical Scanning Parameters Standardization\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTechnical protocol components were systematically developed addressing transducer selection, patient positioning, scanning planes, anatomical landmarks, and image optimization techniques. Transducer specifications were defined based on evidence correlating probe frequency and footprint dimensions with pancreatic visualization success across different body morphotypes. Standard patient positioning protocols were established for systematic pancreatic examination, incorporating supine, right lateral decubitus, and upright positions as clinically indicated. Mandatory scanning planes were defined to ensure comprehensive pancreatic coverage, including transverse and longitudinal imaging through standardized anatomical windows utilizing the liver, spleen, and stomach as acoustic windows. Image optimization parameters addressed focal zone positioning, depth settings, gain adjustment, harmonic imaging applications, and techniques for managing acoustic shadowing from bowel gas. Documentation requirements specified minimum image acquisition standards including representative views of pancreatic head, body, and tail with measurement protocols for pancreatic duct diameter and parenchymal dimensions. Standardized nomenclature for anatomical structures and pathological findings was established based on current radiological terminology to facilitate consistent reporting and interdisciplinary communication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eQuality Assurance Metrics Development\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantifiable quality metrics were established to enable objective assessment of examination adequacy and facilitate ongoing quality improvement initiatives. Metrics were categorized into technical quality indicators and diagnostic completeness measures. Technical quality parameters included visualization score systems for individual pancreatic segments, image quality ratings addressing resolution and artifact presence, and procedural compliance with protocol specifications. Diagnostic completeness metrics encompassed documentation of all required anatomical structures, measurement completion rates, and systematic evaluation of secondary findings including peripancreatic vessels, pancreatic duct, and adjacent organs. A composite quality score was developed integrating multiple individual metrics to provide summary assessment of overall examination quality. Threshold values for acceptable performance were established through analysis of benchmark data from high-volume centers and literature-reported standards regarding minimum criteria for clinical adequacy. The quality metric framework was designed with both retrospective audit applications and real-time quality monitoring capabilities to support diverse quality improvement implementations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProtocol Validation Strategy\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe developed protocol underwent preliminary validation through retrospective application to archived pancreatic ultrasound examinations. A sample of studies performed under standard clinical conditions was reassessed by blinded reviewers applying the proposed protocol criteria to evaluate inter-observer agreement for quality metrics and assess feasibility of retrospective quality scoring. Additionally, the protocol was implemented prospectively in a pilot cohort to identify practical challenges in real-world application and refine procedural elements based on sonographer feedback. Validation metrics included protocol adherence rates, time requirements for examination completion, and comparative analysis of visualization success rates between protocol-adherent and non-standardized examinations. Subgroup analyses examined protocol performance across varying patient characteristics including body mass index categories, presence of bowel gas interference, and timing of examination to identify factors requiring protocol modification or supplementary technical guidance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStatistical Considerations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e Inter-observer agreement for quality metrics was quantified using Cohen's kappa coefficient for categorical variables and intraclass correlation coefficients for continuous measurements. Visualization success rates across different patient characteristics were analyzed to identify factors requiring protocol modification or supplementary guidance. Comparative analyses between protocol-adherent and standard examinations employed chi-square tests for categorical outcomes and independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables depending on data distribution. All statistical analyses were performed using R software version 4.3.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria), a freely available open-source statistical computing environment. Descriptive statistics characterized the distribution of quality scores and identified performance benchmarks for future quality assurance applications. Results were considered statistically significant at p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, with 95% confidence intervals reported for relevant effect estimates.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEthical Considerations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study was designed as a methodological investigation focused on protocol development and technical standardization rather than human subjects research. The protocol formulation relied exclusively on systematic review of published literature, analysis of existing imaging guidelines, and evaluation of technical parameters without involving prospective patient recruitment, experimental interventions, or collection of identifiable patient data. The retrospective validation component utilized only de-identified archival imaging studies as part of routine quality assurance activities, with all patient identifiers removed prior to analysis. According to institutional research ethics policies and applicable regulatory frameworks, quality improvement initiatives aimed at optimizing existing clinical procedures through technical standardization do not constitute human subjects research requiring formal ethics committee review when no identifiable patient information is accessed or analyzed. Furthermore, the study involved no deviation from standard clinical care, no additional risk to patients, and no collection of personal health information beyond routine clinical documentation. Therefore, submission to an institutional review board or research ethics committee was not required for this methodological study. All procedures adhered to institutional quality assurance protocols and complied with applicable privacy regulations governing the use of de-identified health information for quality improvement purposes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLiterature Search Outcomes and Study Selection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe systematic literature search yielded 2,847 potentially relevant articles. After removing 612 duplicates and screening 2,235 titles and abstracts, 342 articles underwent full-text evaluation. Ultimately, 156 studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 87 original research articles, 34 systematic reviews, 21 clinical guidelines, and 14 technical standards documents (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFasting duration of 6\u0026ndash;8 hours optimized pancreatic visualization, with shorter periods significantly reducing success rates. Transducer frequency selection proved critical: 5\u0026ndash;9 MHz for body mass index (BMI)\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;25 kg/m\u0026sup2;, 3\u0026ndash;5 MHz for moderate habitus, and 2-3.5 MHz for BMI\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;30 kg/m\u0026sup2;. Harmonic imaging improved visualization in 65\u0026ndash;80% of examinations. Complete pancreatic visualization occurred in 70\u0026ndash;85% of cases at specialized centers vs. 50\u0026ndash;65% in community settings. Body mass index represented the most influential factor affecting visualization quality. GRADE assessment revealed predominantly moderate to low-quality evidence, with randomized controlled trials largely absent (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAnalysis of Existing Imaging Guidelines and Standards\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSystematic review of professional society guidelines identified comprehensive quality standards for hepatic (AIUM Practice Parameter 2022)\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and renal ultrasonography, but no equivalent pancreatic-specific protocols existed. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria for pancreatic CT and MRI provided valuable frameworks, emphasizing tri-phasic contrast protocols and systematic segmental assessment. EFSUMB recommendations for abdominal ultrasound mentioned pancreatic evaluation briefly without detailed technical specifications. Analysis of 12 institutional protocols from academic centers revealed inconsistent approaches: fasting requirements ranged from 4\u0026ndash;12 hours, transducer selection varied widely, and documentation standards lacked uniformity. Quality metrics from hepatic elastography protocols (Ferraioli et al., 2018)\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e offered validated visualization scoring methodologies potentially adaptable to pancreatic imaging, demonstrating feasibility of standardized quality assessment in challenging abdominal examinations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePatient Preparation Protocol Formulation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalysis of 23 comparative studies established 6\u0026ndash;8 hour fasting as optimal, yielding 15\u0026ndash;20% improvement in visualization vs. 4-hour protocols. Three randomized trials examining pre-examination hydration (400\u0026ndash;500 mL) showed conflicting results, with benefit observed only in 40% of patients. Right lateral decubitus positioning for 15 minutes improved tail visualization in two prospective studies (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;187 combined). Simethicone administration demonstrated statistically significant benefits in four of seven trials, though effect sizes remained modest (visualization improvement 8\u0026ndash;12%). Modified protocols for diabetic patients and emergency situations were extrapolated from general fasting guidelines given absence of pancreas-specific data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTechnical Scanning Parameters Standardization\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eProtocol development synthesized findings from 34 studies correlating transducer frequency with body habitus, establishing BMI-stratified recommendations: 5\u0026ndash;9 MHz for BMI\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;25 kg/m\u0026sup2;, 3\u0026ndash;5 MHz for BMI 25\u0026ndash;30 kg/m\u0026sup2;, and 2-3.5 MHz for BMI\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;30 kg/m\u0026sup2;. Harmonic imaging improved visualization in 12 of 15 comparative studies (pooled improvement 22%). Standardized scanning incorporated epigastric transverse/longitudinal planes using left hepatic lobe window, plus left lateral approach via splenic window for tail assessment. Documentation standards mandated three-segment visualization with pancreatic duct measurement at body level and head anteroposterior diameter measurement in standardized transverse plane.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eQuality Assurance Metrics Development\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA composite quality scoring system was developed incorporating segment-specific visualization grades (adequate/limited/inadequate for head, body, tail) and technical parameters. Analysis of benchmark data from seven high-volume centers (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3,847 examinations) established performance thresholds: \u0026ge;70% adequate visualization rate, \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;85% anatomical landmark identification, and \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;90% documentation completeness. Inter-observer reliability testing demonstrated substantial agreement for visualization scoring (κ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.72) and moderate agreement for image quality assessment (κ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.58). The framework enabled retrospective audit of 15% examination samples while supporting real-time quality monitoring through electronic reporting templates with automated completeness verification.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProtocol Validation Strategy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e Retrospective validation assessed 284 archived pancreatic examinations, with blinded reviewers applying protocol criteria to 142 studies performed before protocol implementation and 142 subsequent protocol-adherent examinations. Protocol adherence averaged 87.3% for preparation requirements and 91.2% for technical parameters. Mean examination time increased modestly from 8.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.1 to 9.7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.8 minutes (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.041). Complete pancreatic visualization improved significantly in protocol-adherent examinations (68.3% vs. 54.2%, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.012), particularly for tail segment assessment (61.3% vs. 45.1%, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.006). Subgroup analysis revealed protocol benefits were most pronounced in patients with BMI 25\u0026ndash;35 kg/m\u0026sup2; (visualization improvement 18.7%), while patients with BMI\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;35 kg/m\u0026sup2; showed minimal improvement (4.2%). Documentation completeness increased substantially from 71.4% to 94.6% (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Prospective pilot implementation (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;96 examinations, 4 sonographers) identified practical workflow challenges requiring minor protocol modifications, including simplified documentation templates and BMI-specific scanning sequence recommendations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStandardized Protocol for Transabdominal Pancreatic Ultrasonography\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePatients should fast 6\u0026ndash;8 hours, extended to 10 hours for BMI\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;30 kg/m\u0026sup2;. Transducer selection follows BMI stratification: 5\u0026ndash;9 MHz for BMI\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;25 kg/m\u0026sup2;, 3\u0026ndash;5 MHz for BMI 25\u0026ndash;30 kg/m\u0026sup2;, and 2-3.5 MHz for BMI\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;30 kg/m\u0026sup2;. Tissue harmonic imaging should be activated when available. Initial supine scanning utilizes epigastric transverse and longitudinal planes through the left hepatic lobe window for head and body assessment. Left lateral decubitus positioning with splenic window approach optimizes tail visualization. Documentation must include representative images of all three pancreatic segments, pancreatic duct diameter measurement at body level, and head anteroposterior diameter. Anatomical landmarks including splenic vein and superior mesenteric vessels should be systematically identified and documented (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003e Our standardized transabdominal pancreatic ultrasound protocol addresses a critical void in abdominal imaging guidelines, offering a reproducible, evidence-informed framework that enhances diagnostic reliability. By establishing evidence-based technical parameters and quality metrics, this work provides an important framework to reduce diagnostic variability and enhance the reliability of pancreatic ultrasonography as a pivotal first-line imaging modality, thereby elevating its clinical utility and reproducibility across diverse practice settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA systematic analysis of current professional guidelines, such as those from the AIUM and EFSUMB, reveals comprehensive standards for hepatic and renal ultrasonography but a conspicuous absence of pancreas-specific protocols.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e This finding starkly contrasts with the detailed technical frameworks available for pancreatic CT and MRI, highlighting the standardization gap our study aimed to fill. The inconsistency observed in institutional protocols further underscores the pressing need for the unified approach we have developed. Our findings confirm this gap and respond by adapting cross-sectional imaging principles to ultrasound, ensuring systematic coverage and structured reporting, fostering uniform documentation absent in current abdominal ultrasound recommendations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOptimal patient preparation for transabdominal pancreatic ultrasonography centers on minimizing gastric content and duodenal gas to enhance acoustic window clarity. Current evidence supports a prolonged fasting protocol with pre-examination water administration period as critical for adequate pancreatic visualization, with shorter durations demonstrably reducing image quality,\u003csup\u003e10,11\u003c/sup\u003e though recent randomized controlled trials challenge universal applicability.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Abu-Yousef et al.\u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003e demonstrated substantially enhanced pancreatic tail visualization utilizing water loading combined with simethicone and positional maneuvers compared to isolated hydration. Okaniwa et al.\u003csup\u003e14\u003c/sup\u003e emphasized multi-positional scanning techniques including right lateral decubitus for optimizing tail assessment. Marsico et al.\u003csup\u003e15\u003c/sup\u003e identified anthropometric parameters, particularly waist circumference, as predictive biomarkers for simethicone therapeutic response. Our results established the following standardization for pancreatic ultrasound examination: prolonged fasting periods yield superior visualization compared to abbreviated protocols; pre-examination hydration demonstrates variable effectiveness across individuals, reflecting physiological heterogeneity; lateral decubitus positioning consistently enhances visualization of the posterior pancreatic segment; and simethicone confers statistically significant, but clinically modest, benefits, particularly in patients with higher anthropometric indices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent evidence literature underscores BMI-stratified transducer frequency selection utilizing convex probes,\u003csup\u003e16\u003c/sup\u003e with harmonic imaging demonstrating superior visualization compared to fundamental B-mode imaging for pancreatic lesion characterization.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Standardized scanning protocols emphasize epigastric transverse/longitudinal planes via hepatic acoustic windows and intercostal approaches for tail segments.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Documentation standards mandate pancreatic duct diameter assessment at body level and anteroposterior head measurements in standardized transverse planes.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Our development protocol, which synthesizes evidence-based correlations between transducer frequency and body habitus, aligns with current literature demonstrating that harmonic imaging enhances the delineation of parenchymal contours and internal architectural details. The standardized multi-window scanning approach, incorporating hepatic and splenic acoustic windows, and the mandatory three-segment documentation requirements are consistent with established international quality benchmarks for pancreatic ultrasonography.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiterature establishes composite scoring systems for transabdominal pancreatic ultrasonography incorporating segment-specific visualization assessments.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e International guidelines recommend documentation completeness thresholds and anatomical landmark identification benchmarks for transabdominal pancreatic imaging quality assurance.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Inter-observer reliability studies demonstrate substantial agreement for transabdominal ultrasound pancreatic visualization grading, though concordance varies across parenchymal echo-texture characterization.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Structured reporting templates with automated verification facilitate systematic quality monitoring in transabdominal ultrasound practice.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Our quality framework integrates structured visualization grading, technical fidelity checks, and electronic verification tools, thereby translating validated quality methodologies from hepatic ultrasonography into a clinically operational format for pancreatic ultrasonography.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiterature emphasizes retrospective validation methodologies comparing pre-implementation vs. protocol-adherent examinations for transabdominal pancreatic ultrasonography.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Standardized scanning approaches facilitate pattern recognition and ensure complete pancreatic assessment, particularly benefiting less experienced operators.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Protocol implementation minimally increases examination duration while substantially improving visualization quality, especially in optimal body habitus ranges.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Documentation completeness represents a critical quality metric in pancreatic imaging protocols.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Our retrospective validation compared archived examinations with assessments by blinded reviewers. The observed protocol adherence rates and the modest increases in examination duration underscore the practical feasibility of standardized approaches. Improvements in visualization, particularly for the tail segment, highlight the protocol-driven enhancement in diagnostic completeness. Stratified benefit analysis by body mass index aligns with the existing literature identifying obesity as the primary limiting factor in pancreatic sonographic visualization. The marked gains in documentation completeness reflect the contemporary emphasis on structured reporting models to support diagnostic accuracy and quality assurance.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study demonstrates that a standardized transabdominal pancreatic ultrasonography protocol significantly improves pancreatic visualization, documentation completeness, and examination reproducibility without clinically relevant time penalties. Its implementation supports quality assurance, facilitates operator training, and provides a robust framework for routine pancreatic assessment across diverse clinical settings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eCompeting Interests:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBhagra A, Tierney DM, Sekiguchi H, Soni NJ (2016) Point-of-Care Ultrasonography for Primary Care Physicians and General Internists. Mayo Clin Proc. ;91(12):1811\u0026ndash;1827. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.08.023\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.08.023\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArienti V, Camaggi V (2011) Clinical applications of bedside ultrasonography in internal and emergency medicine. Intern Emerg Med 6(3):195\u0026ndash;201. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s11739-010-0424-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11739-010-0424-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi JJ, Boivin Z, Bhalodkar S, Liu R (2024) Point of Care Abdominal Ultrasound. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 45(1):11\u0026ndash;21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1053/j.sult.2023.12.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1053/j.sult.2023.12.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdams RB (2022) Ultrasound scanning techniques. Surg Open Sci 10:182\u0026ndash;207. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.sopen.2022.09.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.sopen.2022.09.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClaudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI, Cosgrove DO, Kudo M, Nols\u0026oslash;e CP et al (2013) Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver\u0026ndash;update 2012: a WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultraschall Med 34(1):11\u0026ndash;29. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1055/s-0032-1325499\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1055/s-0032-1325499\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe AIUM Practice Parameter for the (2022) Performance of an Ultrasound Examination of the Abdomen and/or Retroperitoneum. J Ultrasound Med 41(4):E1\u0026ndash;E8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/jum.15874\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/jum.15874\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFerraioli G, Wong VW, Castera L, Berzigotti A, Sporea I, Dietrich CF et al (2018) Liver Ultrasound Elastography: An Update to the World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology Guidelines and Recommendations. Ultrasound Med Biol 44(12):2419\u0026ndash;2440. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.07.008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.07.008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDietrich CF, Nols\u0026oslash;e CP, Barr RG, Berzigotti A, Burns PN, Cantisani V et al (2020) Guidelines and Good Clinical Practice Recommendations for Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the Liver-Update 2020 WFUMB in Cooperation with EFSUMB, AFSUMB, AIUM, and FLAUS. Ultrasound Med Biol 46(10):2579\u0026ndash;2604. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.04.030\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.04.030\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSidhu PS, Cantisani V, Dietrich CF, Gilja OH, Saftoiu A, Bartels E et al (2018) The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations for the Clinical Practice of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in Non-Hepatic Applications: Update 2017 (Long Version). Ultraschall Med. ;39(2):e2-e44. English. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1055/a-0586-1107\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1055/a-0586-1107\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeier J, Lucius C, M\u0026ouml;ller K, Jenssen C, Zervides C, Gschmack AM et al (2024) Pancreatic ultrasound: An update of measurements, reference values, and variations of the pancreas. Ultrasound Int Open 10:a23899085. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1055/a-2389-9085\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1055/a-2389-9085\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMatsumoto K, Kakite S, Sugihara T, Yamashita E, Miyoshi K, Onoyama T et al (2024) Fusion Imaging Objectively Demonstrates Improved Pancreas Visualization through Manipulation Techniques: A Prospective Interventional Study. Intern Med 63(20):2729\u0026ndash;2737. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.2169/internalmedicine.2822-23\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2169/internalmedicine.2822-23\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchreiner M, Thien H, Braasch T, Hoffmann I, Wesemann U, Merkel D et al (2025) The influence of fasting on abdominal ultrasound image quality - a randomized controlled trial. Abdom Radiol (NY) 50(11):5511\u0026ndash;5519. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s00261-025-04947-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00261-025-04947-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbu-Yousef MM, El-Zein Y, Improved (2000) US visualization of the pancreatic tail with simethicone, water, and patient rotation. Radiology 217(3):780\u0026ndash;785. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1148/radiology.217.3.r00dc37780\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1148/radiology.217.3.r00dc37780\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOkaniwa S (2020) How Does Ultrasound Manage Pancreatic Diseases? Ultrasound Findings and Scanning Maneuvers. Gut Liver 14(1):37\u0026ndash;46. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.5009/gnl18567\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5009/gnl18567\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarsico M, Gabbani T, Casseri T, Biagini MR (2016) Factors Predictive of Improved Abdominal Ultrasound Visualization after Oral Administration of Simethicone. Ultrasound Med Biol 42(11):2532\u0026ndash;2537. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.06.024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.06.024\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYaraş S, \u0026Ouml;zdoğan O, Sezgin O (2025) The Triage Role of Transabdominal Ultrasonography (TAUS) in the Diagnostic Management of Pancreatic and Distal Biliary Pathologies: A Comparative Efficacy Analysis with Endoscopic Ultrasonography (EUS). Diagnostics (Basel) 15(23):2955. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3390/diagnostics15232955\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/diagnostics15232955\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHohl C, Schmidt T, Haage P, Honnef D, Blaum M, Staatz G et al (2004) Phase-inversion tissue harmonic imaging compared with conventional B-mode ultrasound in the evaluation of pancreatic lesions. Eur Radiol 14(6):1109\u0026ndash;1117. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s00330-003-2191-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00330-003-2191-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDevi G, Iqbal J, Kang M, Bhasin DK, Gupta R (2018) Tissue Harmonic Imaging Compared with Conventional B-Mode Ultrasound, Biphasic CECT and Tissue Diagnosis in Evaluation of Pancreatic Masses. Annals Int Med Dent Res 4(3):19\u0026ndash;23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSirli R, Sporea I (2010) Ultrasound examination of the normal pancreas. Med Ultrason 12(1):62\u0026ndash;65\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEngjom T, Sangnes DA, Havre RF, Erchinger F, Pham KD, Haldorsen IS et al (2017) Diagnostic Accuracy of Transabdominal Ultrasound in Chronic Pancreatitis. Ultrasound Med Biol 43(4):735\u0026ndash;743. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.11.020\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.11.020\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDomagk D, Oppong KW, Aabakken L, Czak\u0026oacute; L, Gy\u0026ouml;keres T, Manes G et al (2018) Performance measures for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. United Eur Gastroenterol J 6(10):1448\u0026ndash;1460. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/2050640618808157\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/2050640618808157\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang B, Wang Y, Chu Y, Zhang K, Liu L, Zhang K et al (2025) AbVLM-Q: intelligent quality assessment for abdominal ultrasound standard planes via vision-language modeling. BMC Med Imaging 25(1):344. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s12880-025-01885-w\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12880-025-01885-w\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePiscaglia F, Nols\u0026oslash;e C, Dietrich CF, Cosgrove DO, Gilja OH, Bachmann Nielsen M et al (2012) The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Practice of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS): update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall Med 33(1):33\u0026ndash;59. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1055/s-0031-1281676\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1055/s-0031-1281676\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang J, Yang J, Ding J, Zhou J, Yang R, Li J et al (2022) Development and validation of an ultrasound-based prediction model for differentiating between malignant and benign solid pancreatic lesions. Eur Radiol 32(12):8296\u0026ndash;8305. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s00330-022-08930-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00330-022-08930-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMar\u0026iacute;n-Serrano E, Barbado Cano A, Fern\u0026aacute;ndez Martos R, Abad\u0026iacute;a Barno M, Olveira Mart\u0026iacute;n A, Mart\u0026iacute;n Arranz MD (2024) Protocol for acquisition of images and measurement of transabdominal ultrasound pancreatic two-dimensional shear wave elastography (2D-SWE). Gastroenterol Hepatol 47(9):502198 English, Spanish. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.gastrohep.2024.502198\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.gastrohep.2024.502198\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdams RB (2022) Ultrasound scanning techniques. Surg Open Sci 10:182\u0026ndash;207. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.sopen.2022.09.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.sopen.2022.09.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLucius C, Meier J, Gschmack A, Zervides C, Jenssen C, Dong Y et al (2025) Ultrasound of the spleen - an update on measurements, reference values, and influencing factors. A systematic review. Med Ultrason 27(2):185\u0026ndash;194. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.11152/mu-4436\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.11152/mu-4436\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eĆwik G (2013) Standards of the Polish Ultrasound Society - update. Pancreas examination. J Ultrason 13(53):167\u0026ndash;177. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.15557/JoU.2013.0017\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.15557/JoU.2013.0017\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Pancreatic ultrasonography, Transabdominal ultrasound, Standardized protocol","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8476119/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8476119/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTransabdominal ultrasonography remains a first-line imaging modality for pancreatic evaluation, yet its diagnostic performance is limited by operator dependency, inconsistent scanning techniques, and variable documentation standards. The absence of universally adopted pancreas-specific protocols compromises examination reproducibility and quality assurance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eObjective\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo develop and validate a standardized transabdominal ultrasonography protocol for routine pancreatic examination, focusing on scanning methodology, documentation criteria, and visualization quality.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA structured pancreatic ultrasonography protocol was developed based on anatomical landmarks, standardized scanning planes, patient positioning, and predefined documentation requirements. Retrospective validation compared examinations performed before and after protocol implementation, assessing pancreatic segment visualization, examination duration, and documentation completeness. Inter-observer agreement was evaluated across operators with varying levels of experience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eProtocol-adherent examinations demonstrated significantly improved visualization of pancreatic head, body, and tail segments, particularly through optimized acoustic window utilization and multi-positional scanning. Documentation completeness increased markedly, with consistent reporting of pancreatic duct diameter and standardized measurements. Examination duration increased minimally, without clinical workflow disruption. Inter-observer reliability improved substantially for pancreatic visualization grading, with the greatest benefit observed among less experienced operators.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe proposed standardized protocol enhances image quality, reproducibility, and reporting consistency in transabdominal pancreatic ultrasonography. Its adoption represents a practical, low-cost strategy for quality improvement and harmonization of routine pancreatic imaging.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Development of a Standardized Transabdominal Ultrasonography Protocol for Routine Pancreatic Examination","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-06 09:22:16","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8476119/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ab6e42e9-7d0a-4b1a-b6b5-00f76d505028","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 6th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":60353511,"name":"Nuclear Medicine \u0026 Medical Imaging"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-06T09:22:16+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-06 09:22:16","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8476119","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8476119","identity":"rs-8476119","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}