ArticleUltrasonography (Seoul, Korea)2022
Evaluation of ultrasound point shear wave elastography reliability in an elasticity phantom.
Article in Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea), 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Novel Noninvasive Imaging Techniques to Assess Structural, Functional, and Material Properties of Tendon, Ligament, and Cartilage: A Narrative Review of Current Concepts.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Quality Assurance of Point and 2D Shear Wave Elastography through the Establishment of Baseline Data Using Phantoms.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo date, limited studies have specifically addressed the reliability of ultrasound point shear-wave elastography (pSWE). Therefore, the aim of the present study was to assess the reproducibility of ultrasound pSWE within and between operators using two ultrasound scanners.
methodsiU22 and EPIQ7 ultrasound scanners were used to assess the reliability of pSWE measurements of four inclusions [L I (8 kPa), L II (14 kPa), L III (48 kPa), and L IV (80 kPa)] at a depth of 3.5 cm in an elasticity phantom using a curvilinear 5-1 MHz transducer. The intraoperator, inter-operator, and inter-scanner reproducibility of pSWE was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Bland-Altman plots were used to establish bias and limits of agreement (LoA) between measurements. The accuracy of pSWE from manufacturer values was determined using the one-sample t-test.
resultsIntra-operator agreement was excellent, with an ICC >0.90. The bias in measurements for operator A was -0.36±3.13 kPa (LoA, -6.47 to 5.75), and for operator B it was 1.97±6.29 kPa (LoA, -10.25 to 14.21). Inter-operator agreement was excellent, with an ICC of 0.95. The bias in measurements between operators was -0.42±5.00 kPa (LoA, -10.24 to 9.38). The inter-scanner agreement between EPIQ7 and iU22 was excellent, with an ICC of 0.96. The bias in measurements between scanners was 1.74±4.44 kPa (LoA, -6.95 to 10.45). There was significant overestimation for L I (17.75%) and L II (31.14%) and underestimation for L III (-15.28%) and L VI (-98.00%) relative to the manufacturer-reported values.
conclusionPhantom ultrasound pSWE was reproducible within and between operators, and between Philips ultrasound scanners; further studies using different ultrasound systems and transducers are required.
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.