ArticleUltrasound international open2017
Interobserver Variation of the Bolus-and-Burst Method for Pancreatic Perfusion with Dynamic - Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound.
Article in Ultrasound international open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sweep and Scrutinize: Improving Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Efficacy by Combining Whole-Gland Contrast-Enhanced Transrectal Ultrasound With Fixed-Plane Flash-Replenishment Imaging.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2026Article
- Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of the pancreas shows impaired perfusion in pancreas insufficient cystic fibrosis patients.BMC medical imaging · 2018Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) can be used for calculating organ perfusion. By combining bolus injection with burst replenishment, the actual mean transit time (MTT) can be estimated. Blood volume (BV) can be obtained by scaling the data to a vessel on the imaging plane. The study aim was to test interobserver agreement for repeated recordings using the same ultrasound scanner and agreement between results on two different scanner systems. MATERIALS AND
methodsTen patients under evaluation for exocrine pancreatic failure were included. Each patient was scanned two times on a GE Logiq E9 scanner, by two different observers, and once on a Philips IU22 scanner, after a bolus of 1.5 ml Sonovue. A 60-second recording of contrast enhancement was performed before the burst and the scan continued for another 30 s for reperfusion. We performed data analysis using MATLAB-based DCE-US software. An artery in the same depth as the region of interest (ROI) was used for scaling. The measurements were compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland Altman plots.
resultsThe interobserver agreement on the Logiq E9 for MTT (ICC=0.83, confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.96) was excellent. There was poor agreement for MTT between the Logiq E9 and the IU22 (ICC=-0.084, CI -0.68-0.58). The interobserver agreement for blood volume measurements was excellent on the Logiq E9 (ICC=0.9286, CI 0.7250-0.98) and between scanners (ICC=0.86, CI=0.50-0.97).
conclusionInterobserver agreement was excellent using the same scanner for both parameters and between scanners for BV, but the comparison between two scanners did not yield acceptable agreement for MTT. This was probably due to incomplete bursting of bubbles in some of the recordings on the IU22.
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.