Comparison of ultrasound quality assurance phantom measurements from matched and mixed scanner-transducer combinations

Tradup, Donald J.

doi:10.1120/1.1574851

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is no appreciable, systematic difference between the match and the mix data sets. This is the same conclusion we reached in our initial preliminary experiment 5 . The two DOP cases where differences were suggested represent only two of the six DOP measurement comparisons, and only two of 18 total comparisons made for all three measurements.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…We designed this study comparing matched and mixed QA test data to determine the practical importance of obtaining only matched data for QA purposes. An initial preliminary study was performed 5 . The current study was improved by focussing only on tests in our QA program, including larger data sets, and employing more sensitive statistical testing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of ultrasound quality assurance phantom measurements from matched and mixed scanner‐transducer combinations

Tradup

Hangiandreou

Taubel

2003

J Applied Clin Med Phys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our goal in this work was to compare the results of common phantom tests made using matched and mixed ultrasound (US) scanner‐transducer combinations. Sets of common US quality assurance (QA) measurements were made using matched US scanner‐transducer combinations (i.e., transducers purchased for use with a particular scanner), as well as unmatched (mixed) combinations. Measurements of vertical and horizontal distance accuracy, and depth of penetration were performed using three common transducer types. Means, standard deviations, and differences between the mean mix and match measurements divided by the standard deviation (match‐mix difference, or MMD), and two‐sided, paired t‐tests were computed for the groups of mixed and matched measurements. MMDs for vertical and horizontal distance accuracy test results were less than 0.87 in all cases, well below our threshold value of 2.0, which indicates that a significant difference exists. MMDs for the depth of penetration measurements were less than 1.50, again below the threshold value. These results suggest that all of the mixed and matched data sets were very similar. The more sensitive t‐tests indicate statistically significant differences in only 2 of the 18 pairs of data sets. In conclusion, this study suggests that QA measurements generated by mixed or matched scanner‐transducer combinations are very comparable. The ability to obtain QA phantom test data from mixed scanner‐transducer combinations reduces the time required for US QA testing.PACS number(s): 87.57.–s, 87.62.+n

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of ultrasound quality assurance phantom measurements from matched and mixed scanner‐transducer combinations

Tradup

Hangiandreou

Taubel

2003

J Applied Clin Med Phys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The optimal phantoms for individual US units can vary. However, a previous study reported that the various combinations of scanners and probes do not significantly alter the results of phantom images [26]. Third, we only evaluated digital images.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intra- and interobserver reliability of gray scale/dynamic range evaluation of ultrasonography using a standardized phantom

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To evaluate intra- and interobserver reliability of the gray scale/dynamic range of the phantom image evaluation of ultrasonography using a standardized phantom, and to assess the effect of interactive education on the reliability.Methods:Three radiologists (a resident, and two board-certified radiologists with 2 and 7 years of experience in evaluating ultrasound phantom images) performed the gray scale/dynamic range test for an ultrasound machine using a standardized phantom. They scored the number of visible cylindrical structures of varying degrees of brightness and made a ‘pass or fail’ decision. First, they scored 49 phantom images twice from a 2010 survey with limited knowledge of phantom images. After this, the radiologists underwent two hours of interactive education for the phantom images and scored another 91 phantom images from a 2011 survey twice. Intra- and interobserver reliability before and after the interactive education session were analyzed using K analyses.Results:Before education, the K-value for intraobserver reliability for the radiologist with 7 years of experience, 2 years of experience, and the resident was 0.386, 0.469, and 0.465, respectively. After education, the K-values were improved (0.823, 0.611, and 0.711, respectively). For interobserver reliability, the K-value was also better after the education for the 3 participants (0.067, 0.002, and 0.547 before education; 0.635, 0.667, and 0.616 after education, respectively).Conclusion:The intra- and interobserver reliability of the gray scale/dynamic range was fair to substantial. Interactive education can improve reliability. For more reliable results, double- checking of phantom images by multiple reviewers is recommended.

show abstract

“…Quality assurance (QA) methods for B-mode ultrasound (US) are often based on phantom studies (1 –8), conventionally performed with manual measurements and visual image analysis (1 –4,6,7). Computer programs for automatic image analysis have also been utilized to increase the objectivity, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phantom-based quality assurance measurements in B-mode ultrasound

Mannila

Sipilä

2013

Acta Radiologica Short Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRecommended phantom-based quality assurance measurements in B-mode ultrasound (US) may be tedious. For the purpose of cost-effective US quality assurance it is important to evaluate measurements that effectively reflect the quality of US scanner.PurposeTo find out which recommended phantom-based quality assurance measurements are effective in detecting dead or weak transducer elements or channels in US scanners when visual image analysis and manual measurements are used.Material and MethodsAltogether 66 transducers from 33 US scanners were measured using a general purpose phantom and a transducer tester. The measurements were divided into two groups. Group I consisted of phantom-based uniformity measurement, imaging the air with a clean transducer (air image) and measuring the transducer with the transducer tester, and group II of phantom-based measurements of depth of penetration, beam profile, near field, axial and lateral resolution, and vertical and horizontal distance accuracy. The group II measurements were compared to group I measurements.ResultsWith group I measurements, the results with 20% of the transducers were found defective. With 35% of the transducers the results were considered defective in group II measurements. Concurrent flaws in both groups were found with 11% of the transducers.ConclusionPhantom-based measurements of depth of penetration, beam profile, near field, axial and lateral resolution, and vertical and horizontal distance accuracy did not consistently detect dead or weak transducer elements or channels in US scanners.

show abstract

Comparison of ultrasound quality assurance phantom measurements from matched and mixed scanner-transducer combinations

Cited by 8 publications

References 1 publication

Comparison of ultrasound quality assurance phantom measurements from matched and mixed scanner‐transducer combinations

Comparison of ultrasound quality assurance phantom measurements from matched and mixed scanner‐transducer combinations

Intra- and interobserver reliability of gray scale/dynamic range evaluation of ultrasonography using a standardized phantom

Phantom-based quality assurance measurements in B-mode ultrasound

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About