2018
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-018-0953-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ultrasonography, an operator-dependent modality versus dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in the detection of chondrocalcinosis: with regard to Tanikawa et al.’s study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
(8 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…After comparing a computed tomography with musculoskeletal ultrasonography, the conclusion was that after the parameters were set, the tomography was not operator-dependent, but it was not suited for daily practice at the office because it is an imaging technique with rather X-ray exposure. The musculoskeletal ultrasonography can scan several joints on the same visit, it can scan the blood flow at the same time, but many authors view the musculoskeletal ultrasound as an operator-dependent technique that should be overcome [29].…”
Section: S29mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After comparing a computed tomography with musculoskeletal ultrasonography, the conclusion was that after the parameters were set, the tomography was not operator-dependent, but it was not suited for daily practice at the office because it is an imaging technique with rather X-ray exposure. The musculoskeletal ultrasonography can scan several joints on the same visit, it can scan the blood flow at the same time, but many authors view the musculoskeletal ultrasound as an operator-dependent technique that should be overcome [29].…”
Section: S29mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Small differences in reported data of various authors can also be explained by operator skills [ 41 , 42 , 43 ], certain artefacts (inflammatory infiltrate, solar elastosis, sebaceous gland hyperplasia), as well as anatomical particularities [ 4 ]. In our study, the good correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r =0.92) can be explained by the fact that all patients were evaluated by the same experienced sonographer using an appropriate amount of gel.…”
Section: ⧉ Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%