ArticlePloS one2020
Evaluation of 3D ultrasound for image guidance.
Article in PloS one, 2020. 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.
- Review of Linear-Array-Transducer-Based Volumetric Ultrasound Imaging Techniques and Their Biomedical Applications.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A novel hybrid deep learning approach combining deep feature attention and statistical validation for enhanced thyroid ultrasound segmentation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- 3D ultrasound guided navigation system with hybrid image fusion.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn this paper we compared two different 3D ultrasound (US) modes (3D free-hand mode and 3D wobbler mode) to see which is more suitable to perform the 3D-US/3D-US registration for clinical guidance applications. The typical errors with respect to their impact on the final localization error were evaluated step by step.
methodsMulti-point target and Hand-eye calibration methods were used for 3D US calibration together with a newly designed multi-cone phantom. Pointer based and image based methods were used for 2D US calibration. The calibration target error was computed by using a different multi-cone phantom. An egg-shaped phantom was used as ground truth to compare distortions for both 3D modes along with the measurements of the volume. Finally, we compared 3D ultrasound images acquired by 3D wobbler mode and 3D free-hand mode with respect to their 3D-US/3D-US registration accuracy using both, phantom and patient data. A theoretical step by step error analysis was performed and compared to empirical data.
resultsTarget registration errors based on the calibration with the 3D Multi-point and 2D pointer/image method have been found to be comparable (∼1mm). They both outperformed the 3D Hand-eye method (error >2mm). Volume measurements with the 3D free-hand mode were closest to the ground truth (around 6% error compared to 9% with the 3D wobbler mode). Additional scans on phantoms showed a 3D-US/3D-US registration error below 1 mm for both, the 3D free-hand mode and the 3D wobbler mode, respectively. Results with patient data showed greater error with the 3D free-hand mode (6.50mm - 13.37mm) than with the 3D wobbler mode (2.99 ± 1.54 mm). All the measured errors were found to be in accordance to their theoretical upper bounds.
conclusionWhile both 3D volume methods showed comparable results with respect to 3D-US/3D-US registration for phantom images, for patient data registrations the 3D wobbler mode is superior to the 3D free-hand mode. The effect of all error sources could be estimated by theoretical derivations.
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.