Google Scholar has studies on it comparing non-invasive methods...

Google Scholar has studies on it comparing non-invasive methods including the USCOM-1A. They seem to suggest we're faster, easier to learn but vulnerable to patient anatomy/cooperation. Recognising most of us aren't doctors so we can't tell how relative accuracy, feasibility, speed etc relates to real world application.

The pivot for the last few years has been to paediatrics as that seems to be the best fit for the device compared to methods like bioreactance. In China of course we're better positioned to sell for wider use.