Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35282988›Full record

ReviewUltrasound in medicine & biology2022

Spatial Coherence in Medical Ultrasound: A Review.

James Long, Gregg Trahey, Nick Bottenus

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ultrasound in medicine & biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

James LongDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA. Electronic address: j.long@duke.edu.
Gregg TraheyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Nick BottenusDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA.

Funding

Coherence-Based Fetal Ultrasonic ImagingR01EB017711 · NIBIB · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI TRAHEY, GREGG E. · 2014 to 2025
$4.7M
A Patient-Adaptive, High MI Abdominal ScannerR01EB026574 · NIBIB · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI TRAHEY, GREGG E. · 2018 to 2021
$2.3M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB017711NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB026574
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional pulse-echo ultrasound imaging heavily relies on the discernment of signals based on their relative magnitudes but is limited in its ability to mitigate sources of image degradation, the most prevalent of which is acoustic clutter. Advances in computing power and data storage have made it possible for echo data to be alternatively analyzed through the lens of spatial coherence, a measure of the similarity of these signals received across an array. Spatial coherence is not currently explicitly calculated on diagnostic ultrasound scanners but a large number of studies indicate that it can be employed to describe image quality, to adaptively select system parameters and to improve imaging and target detection. With the additional insights provided by spatial coherence, it is poised to play a significant role in the future of medical ultrasound. This review details the theory of spatial coherence in pulse-echo ultrasound and key advances made over the last few decades since its introduction in the 1980s.

Indexed as

AcousticsUltrasonographyBeamformingClutter reductionImage quality characterizationSpatial coherenceTissue characterization

Identifiers

PMID35282988
PMCPMC9067166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.