Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31295308›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Accuracy and precision of ultrasound shear wave elasticity measurements according to target elasticity and acquisition depth: A phantom study.

Chong Hyun Suh, Hee Mang Yoon, Seung Chai Jung, Young Jun Choi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Chong Hyun SuhDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Asanbyeongwon-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hee Mang YoonDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Asanbyeongwon-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Seung Chai JungDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Asanbyeongwon-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5559-7973
Young Jun ChoiDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Asanbyeongwon-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the accuracy and precision of ultrasound shear wave elasticity measurements as a function of target elasticity and acquisition depth. MATERIALS AND

methodsUsing five ultrasound systems (VTQ, VTIQ, EPIQ 5, Aixplorer, and Aplio 500), two operators independently measured shear wave elasticities in two phantoms containing five different target elasticities (8±3, 14±4, 25±6, 45±8, and 80±12 kPa) at depths of 15, 30, 35, and 60 mm. Accuracy was assessed by evaluating measurement errors and the proportions of outliers, while factors affecting accuracy were assessed using logistic regression analysis. Measurement errors were defined as differences between the measured values and 1) the margins of the target elasticity, and 2) the median values of the target elasticity. Outliers were defined as measured values outside the margins of the target elasticity. Precision was assessed by calculating the reproducibility of measurements using the within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV).

resultsMean measurement errors and the proportions of outliers were higher for high than for low target elasticities (p<0.001), but did not differ in relation to acquisition depth, either within an elastography system or across the different systems. Logistic regression analysis showed that target elasticity (p<0.001) significantly affected accuracy, whereas acquisition depth (p>0.05) did not. The wCV for the 80±12 kPa target (31.33%) was significantly higher than that for lower elasticity targets (6.96-10.43 kPa; p<0.001). The wCV did not differ across acquisition depths. The individual elastography systems showed consistent results.

conclusionsTargets with high elasticity showed lower accuracy and lower precision than targets with low elasticity, while acquisition depth did not show consistent patterns in either accuracy or precision.

Indexed as

Ultrasonic WavesElasticityElasticity Imaging TechniquesElastic ModulusHumansPhantoms, ImagingUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID31295308
PMCPMC6622533

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.