ArticleJournal of medical ultrasound
Performance Evaluation of Ultrasonic Imaging System (Part I).
Article in Journal of medical ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Assessment of Point Shear Wave Elastography (pSWE) and Two-Dimensional Shear Wave Elastography (2D-SWE) in the Diagnostic Evaluation of Simple Liver Cysts and Liver Hemangiomas.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Compact meta-differentiator for achieving isotropically high-contrast ultrasonic imaging.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Performance Evaluation of an Ultrasonic Imaging System Using Tissue-Mimicking Phantoms for Quality Assurance.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A Review of Blood-mimicking Fluid Properties Using Doppler Ultrasound Applications.Journal of medical ultrasoundReview
- The Diagnostic Value of Artificial Intelligence in C-TIRADS 4-5 Nodules, Real-Time Dynamic Ultrasound and Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound to Enhance the Difference Between Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma and Nodular Goiter.Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCUArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiagnostic ultrasound or sonography is an image which can provide valuable information for diagnosing and treating a variety of diseases and conditions. This experiment was done to check the performance and evaluate the ultrasonic imaging system. There were three tests performed in this experiment: dead zone (transducer ring-down), vertical measurement calibration, and horizontal measurement calibration.
methodsThe evaluation was made by performed all the tests with different depth on two different multipurpose phantom model #539. The tests were also performed by two different probes which were curved and flat (linear probe). The images were taken, and the measurements were made by electronic calipers on the ultrasound machine system. Observations and evaluations were done via all images and measurements taken.
resultsThe images formed by two various probes were different. The penetration settings were different since the depths were different. The depth influenced the penetrations to the formed image. From the comparison of all results and measurements recorded were all under the accepted value of the standard that was given by the manufacture of the phantom.
conclusionTherefore, it can be concluded that the measurements were all not exceeding 2% of the standard value given based on the result that we get.
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.