ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2018
Experimental study of sector and linear array ultrasound accuracy and the influence of navigated 3D-reconstruction as compared to MRI in a brain tumor model.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2018. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Echocardiographic Quantification of Superior Vena Cava (SVC) Flow in Neonates: Pilot Study of Modified Technique.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- DeepSeg: deep neural network framework for automatic brain tumor segmentation using magnetic resonance FLAIR images.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2020Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCurrently, intraoperative ultrasound in brain tumor surgery is a rapidly propagating option in imaging technology. We examined the accuracy and resolution limits of different ultrasound probes and the influence of 3D-reconstruction in a phantom and compared these results to MRI in an intraoperative setting (iMRI).
methodsAn agarose gel phantom with predefined gel targets was examined with iMRI, a sector (SUS) and a linear (LUS) array probe with two-dimensional images. Additionally, 3D-reconstructed sweeps in perpendicular directions were made of every target with both probes, resulting in 392 measurements. Statistical calculations were performed, and comparative boxplots were generated.
resultsEvery measurement of iMRI and LUS was more precise than SUS, while there was no apparent difference in height of iMRI and 3D-reconstructed LUS. Measurements with 3D-reconstructed LUS were always more accurate than in 2D-LUS, while 3D-reconstruction of SUS showed nearly no differences to 2D-SUS in some measurements. We found correlations of 3D-reconstructed SUS and LUS length and width measurements with 2D results in the same image orientation.
conclusionsLUS provides an accuracy and resolution comparable to iMRI, while SUS is less exact than LUS and iMRI. 3D-reconstruction showed the potential to distinctly improve accuracy and resolution of ultrasound images, although there is a strong correlation with the sweep direction during data acquisition.
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.