Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29542277›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2018

Clinical acceptance testing and scanner comparison of ultrasound shear wave elastography.

Zaiyang Long, Donald J Tradup, Pengfei Song, Scott F Stekel, Shigao Chen, Katrina N Glazebrook, Nicholas J Hangiandreou

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Radiological Society of North America/Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance Shear Wave Speed Bias Quantification in Elastic and Viscoelastic Phantoms.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zaiyang LongDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Donald J TradupDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Pengfei SongDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Scott F StekelDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Shigao ChenDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Katrina N GlazebrookDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Nicholas J HangiandreouDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Because of the rapidly growing use of ultrasound shear wave elastography (SWE) in clinical practices, there is a significant need for development of clinical physics performance assessment methods for this technology. This study aims to report two clinical medical physicists' tasks: (a) acceptance testing (AT) of SWE function on ten commercial ultrasound systems for clinical liver application and (b) comparison of SWE measurements of targets across vendors for clinical musculoskeletal application. For AT, ten GE LOGIQ E9 XDclear 2.0 scanners with ten C1-6-D and ten 9L-D transducers were studied using two commercial homogenous phantoms. Five measurements were acquired at two depths for each scanner/transducer pair by two operators. Additional tests were performed to access effects of different coupling media, phantom locations and operators. System deviations were less than 5% of group mean or three times standard deviation; therefore, all systems passed AT. A test protocol was provided based on results that no statistically significant difference was observed between using ultrasound gel and salt water for coupling, among different phantom locations, and that interoperator and intraoperator coefficient of variation was less than 3%. For SWE target measurements, two systems were compared - a Supersonic Aixplorer scanner with a SL10-2 and a SL15-4 transducer, and an abovementioned GE scanner with 9L-D transducer. Two stepped cylinders with diameters of 4.05-10.40 mm were measured both longitudinally and transaxially. Target shear wave speed quantification was performed using an in-house MATLAB program. Using the target shear wave speed deduced from phantom specs as a reference, SL15-4 performed the best at the measured depth. However, it was challenging to reliably measure a 4.05 mm target for either system. The reported test methods and results could provide important information when dealing with SWE-related tasks in the clinical environment.

Indexed as

Phantoms, ImagingElasticity Imaging TechniquesHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLiver CirrhosisQuality Assurance, Health CareTransducersUltrasonographyacceptance testingGEshear wave elastographySupersonictarget measurementsultrasound

Identifiers

PMID29542277
PMCPMC5978380
OpenAlexW2793910470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.