ArticleUltrasound in medicine & biology2021
Quantifying the Effect of Abdominal Body Wall on In Situ Peak Rarefaction Pressure During Diagnostic Ultrasound Imaging.
Article in Ultrasound in medicine & biology, 2021. 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.
- Focused ultrasound in modern medicine: bioengineering interfaces, molecular effects, and clinical breakthroughs.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- On the Relationship between Spatial Coherence and In Situ Pressure for Abdominal Imaging.Ultrasound in medicine & biology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, 3-D non-linear ultrasound simulations and experimental measurements were used to estimate the range of in situ pressures that can occur during transcutaneous abdominal imaging and to identify the sources of error when estimating in situ peak rarefaction pressures (PRPs) using linear derating, as specified by the mechanical index (MI) guideline. Using simulations, it was found that, for a large transmit aperture (F/1.5), MI consistently over-estimated in situ PRP by 20%-48% primarily owing to phase aberration. For a medium transmit aperture (F/3), the MI accurately estimated the in situ PRP to within 8%. For a small transmit aperture (F/5), MI consistently underestimated the in situ PRP by 32%-50%, with peak locations occurring 1-2 cm before the focal depth, often within the body wall itself. The large variability across body wall samples and focal configurations demonstrates the limitations of the simplified linear derating scheme. The results suggest that patient-specific in situ PRP estimation would allow for increases in transmit pressures, particularly for tightly focused beams, to improve diagnostic image quality while ensuring patient safety.
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.