The Automated Assessment of Ultrasound Scanner Lateral and Slice Thickness Resolution: Use of the Step Response

Rowland, David; Newey, V. R.; Turner, David P.; Nassiri, D. K.

doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2009.03.015

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus far, we have only evaluated US QC tests required by our accrediting organization (American College of Radiology). Recently, several new and novel methods of objective assessment of ultrasound equipment performance have been proposed (e.g., Kofler et al 2001;Satrapa et al 2006;Dolezal et al 2007;Rowland et al 2009;MacGillivray et al 2010). For pre-purchase testing purposes, we have employed a test to assess spherical target detectability, similar to work reported by Kofler et al 2001.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recommended ultrasound performance tests and measurement approaches based on subjective and manual methods, as well as objective computer-based analysis of phantom images have been described in the literature (Goldstein et al 1989;Goodsitt et al 1998;Gibson et al 2001;Kofler et al 2001;Satrapa et al 2006;Dolezal et al 2007;Thijssen et al 2007;Rowland et al 2009;MacGillivray et al 2010). Dedicated commercial tools for testing US transducers have also been reported (Moore et al 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Four-Year Experience with a Clinical Ultrasound Quality Control Program

Hangiandreou

Stekel

Tradup

et al. 2011

Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Four-Year Experience with a Clinical Ultrasound Quality Control Program

Hangiandreou

Stekel

Tradup

et al. 2011

Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Due to the subjective nature of visual inspection, computerized automated evaluation of parameters of US images has been considered [10,11,21-24]. A relatively high subjectivity of visual inspection has been reported [25].…”

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

“…Thijssen et al reported and implemented a test protocol including a series of quantitative measurements of overall dynamic range, sensitivity, contrast resolution, and spatial resolution 3. Other methods for quantitatively assessing metrics such as resolution integral, depth of penetration (DOP), entropy, correlation, clutter, and spherical target detection have also been proposed 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluations of UltraiQ software for objective ultrasound image quality assessment using images from a commercial scanner

Long

Tradup

Stekel

et al. 2018

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluated a commercially available software package that uses B‐mode images to semi‐automatically measure quantitative metrics of ultrasound image quality, such as contrast response, depth of penetration (DOP), and spatial resolution (lateral, axial, and elevational). Since measurement of elevational resolution is not a part of the software package, we achieved it by acquiring phantom images with transducers tilted at 45 degrees relative to the phantom. Each measurement was assessed in terms of measurement stability, sensitivity, repeatability, and semi‐automated measurement success rate. All assessments were performed on a GE Logiq E9 ultrasound system with linear (9L or 11L), curved (C1‐5), and sector (S1‐5) transducers, using a CIRS model 040GSE phantom. In stability tests, the measurements of contrast, DOP, and spatial resolution remained within a ±10% variation threshold in 90%, 100%, and 69% of cases, respectively. In sensitivity tests, contrast, DOP, and spatial resolution measurements followed the expected behavior in 100%, 100%, and 72% of cases, respectively. In repeatability testing, intra‐ and inter‐individual coefficients of variations were equal to or less than 3.2%, 1.3%, and 4.4% for contrast, DOP, and spatial resolution (lateral and axial), respectively. The coefficients of variation corresponding to the elevational resolution test were all within 9.5%. Overall, in our assessment, the evaluated package performed well for objective and quantitative assessment of the above‐mentioned image qualities under well‐controlled acquisition conditions. We are finding it to be useful for various clinical ultrasound applications including performance comparison between scanners from different vendors.

show abstract

The Automated Assessment of Ultrasound Scanner Lateral and Slice Thickness Resolution: Use of the Step Response

Cited by 12 publications

References 9 publications

Four-Year Experience with a Clinical Ultrasound Quality Control Program

Four-Year Experience with a Clinical Ultrasound Quality Control Program

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

Evaluations of UltraiQ software for objective ultrasound image quality assessment using images from a commercial scanner

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About