Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28148767›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2017

Ultrasound imaging velocimetry with interleaved images for improved pulsatile arterial flow measurements: a new correction method, experimental and in vivo validation.

Katharine H Fraser, Christian Poelma, Bin Zhou, Eleni Bazigou, Meng-Xing Tang, Peter D Weinberg

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Hemodynamics in Doppler ultrasonography.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The association of peak systolic velocity in the carotid artery with coronary heart disease: A study based on portable ultrasound.Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Katharine H FraserDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK k.h.fraser@bath.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7828-1354
Christian PoelmaLaboratory for Aero and Hydrodynamics, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Bin ZhouSchool of Environment and Energy, Southeast University, Nanjing, People's Republic of China.
Eleni BazigouDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
Meng-Xing TangDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
Peter D WeinbergDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/11/5/28743
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Blood velocity measurements are important in physiological science and clinical diagnosis. Doppler ultrasound is the most commonly used method but can only measure one velocity component. Ultrasound imaging velocimetry (UIV) is a promising technique capable of measuring two velocity components; however, there is a limit on the maximum velocity that can be measured with conventional hardware which results from the way images are acquired by sweeping the ultrasound beam across the field of view. Interleaved UIV is an extension of UIV in which two image frames are acquired concurrently, allowing the effective interframe separation time to be reduced and therefore increasing the maximum velocity that can be measured. The sweeping of the ultrasound beam across the image results in a systematic error which must be corrected: in this work, we derived and implemented a new velocity correction method which accounts for acceleration of the scatterers. We then, for the first time, assessed the performance of interleaved UIV for measuring pulsatile arterial velocities by measuring flows in phantoms and in vivo and comparing the results with spectral Doppler ultrasound and transit-time flow probe data. The velocity and flow rate in the phantom agreed within 5-10% of peak velocity, and 2-9% of peak flow, respectively, and in vivo the velocity difference was 9% of peak velocity. The maximum velocity measured was 1.8 m s

Indexed as

Models, CardiovascularPulsatile FlowAnimalsMaleRabbitsUltrasonography, Doppleratherosclerosisblood flowecho-PIVhaemodynamicsparticle image velocimetryultrasound

Identifiers

PMID28148767
PMCPMC5332564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.