ArticlePloS one2014
Accuracy of visual scoring and semi-quantification of ultrasound strain elastography--a phantom study.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-Chemotherapy Canine Lymphomatous Lymph Node Observations on B-Mode and Strain Elastographic Ultrasound.Veterinary sciences · 2024Article
- Strain sonoelastography in asymptomatic individuals and individuals with knee osteoarthritis: an evaluation of quadriceps and patellar tendon.Rheumatology international · 2022Article
- Comparison between Histological Features and Strain Elastographic Characteristics in Canine Mammary Carcinomas.Veterinary sciences · 2021Article
- Methodological Study to Investigate the Potential of Ultrasound-Based Elastography and Texture as Biomarkers to Monitor Liver Tumors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Reliability of ultrasound strain elastography in the assessment of the quadriceps and patellar tendon in healthy adults.Ultrasound (Leeds, England) · 2019Article
- Image reconstruction utilizing median filtering applied to elastography.Biomedical engineering online · 2019Article
- Strain histograms are equal to strain ratios in predicting malignancy in breast tumours.PloS one · 2017Article
- Comparison of shear wave velocities on ultrasound elastography between different machines, transducers, and acquisition depths: a phantom study.European radiology · 2016Article
- Do we need elastography for EUS?Endoscopic ultrasoundReview
- Could semiquantitative analysis of real-time ultrasound elastography distinguish more liver parenchyma alterations of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome?Archives of endocrinology and metabolismArticle
- Ultrasonographic Elasticity Contrast Index of Palpable Breast Lumps.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of strain elastography in an elasticity phantom and to assess which factors influenced visual scoring, strain histograms and strain ratios. Furthermore this study aimed to evaluate the effect of observer experience on visual scorings. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo operators examined 20 targets of various stiffness and size (16.7 to 2.5 mm) in an elasticity phantom at a depth of 3.5 cm with a 5-18 MHz transducer. Two pre-settings were used yielding 80 scans. Eight evaluators, four experienced, four inexperienced, performed visual scorings. Cut-offs for semi-quantitative methods were established for prediction of target stiffness. Data was pooled in two categories allowing calculations of sensitivity and specificity. Statistical tests chi-square test and linear regression as relevant.
resultsStrain ratios and strain histograms were superior to visual scorings of both experienced and inexperienced observers (p = 0.025, strain histograms vs. experienced observers, p<0.001, strain histograms vs. inexperienced observers, p = 0.044 strain ratios vs. experienced observers and p = 0.002 strain ratios vs. inexperienced observers). No significant difference in predicting target stiffness between strain ratios and strain histograms (p = 0.83) nor between experienced and inexperienced observers (p = 0.054) was shown when using four categories. When pooling data in two groups (80 kPa/45 kPa vs. 14/8 kPa) the difference between the observers became significant (p<0.001). Target size had a significant influence on strain ratios measurements (p = 0.017) and on visual scorings (p<0.001) but not on the strain histograms(p = 0.358). Observer experience had significant effect on visual scorings(p = 0.003).
conclusionStrain ratios and strain histograms are superior to visual scoring in assessing target stiffness in a phantom. Target size had a significant impact on strain ratios and visual scoring, but not on strain histograms. Experience influenced visual scorings but the difference between experienced and inexperienced observers was only significant when looking at two classes of target stiffness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.