ReviewJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2019
Range-ambiguity artifact in abdominal ultrasound.
Review in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contrast-Enhanced Sonography of the Liver: How to Avoid Artifacts.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Refraction artifact on abdominal sonogram.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2021Review
- Diagnostic problems in two-dimensional shear wave elastography of the liver.World journal of radiology · 2020Review
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
Range-ambiguity artifacts (RAAs) are an erroneous mapping of returning echoes into a composite picture. The purpose of this review was to illustrate the mechanism of RAAs and to present the diagnostic problems caused by RAAs. RAA features differ slightly from organ to organ. At the level of the urinary bladder, RAAs take the form of a cloud-like, ill-demarcated, immobile, echogenic area, and the depth of the echogenic area differs depending on the pulse repetition frequency (PRF). This form is referred to as "static RAA" in this review. There are two key ultrasound characteristics of RAAs at the level of the liver: (a) the depth of RAAs change according to the PRF, and (b) RAAs move in accordance with the cardiac cycle. This form is referred to as "mobile RAA" in this review. At the level of the gallbladder, RAAs take the form of fine echogenic lines in the gallbladder. This phenomenon is actually a combination of two phenomena: a ring-down artifact and RAA. This form is referred to as "complex RAA (searchlight phenomenon)" in this review. The easiest way to reduce RAAs is to change the image depth. Sufficient knowledge of RAAs can prevent misdiagnosis of erroneously displayed returning echoes as real pathologic changes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30888535What 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.