2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultras.2009.04.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

In vivo comparison of three ultrasound vector velocity techniques to MR phase contrast angiography

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
38
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
0
38
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Several studies have been realized with TO, examining the advantages and limitations of the method [6][7][8][9][10]. Furthermore, preliminary results have been published on cardiac flow using intraoperative TO [11,12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several studies have been realized with TO, examining the advantages and limitations of the method [6][7][8][9][10]. Furthermore, preliminary results have been published on cardiac flow using intraoperative TO [11,12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…the carotid artery [44] and low velocity flow as indicated by Tanter et al [45] for plane wave emissions. A high f pr f and cross-correlation approaches or speckle tracking can find the high velocities.…”
Section: High Dynamic Range Flow Imagingmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…3. The first validation of SA flow was conducted by Hansen et al [44] where three vector flow methods were compared including SA directional flow imaging. Eight emissions were used for the flow sequences and phased contrast MRI was used as a reference when scanning the carotid artery.…”
Section: A Validation Of Sa Flow Imagingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As measurement error is an important component of interventional in vivo studies, the accuracy in flow imaging should be determined through validation studies, using either criterion standard methodology (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging [60]), or validated models with known hemodynamic properties (e.g., computational fluid dynamics simulations [61] and flow phantoms [62]). The specific decisions for constructing and validating flow phantoms have been previously reviewed [63], and should be considered prior to diverting resources to human studies.…”
Section: Validation Of Methods Prior To In Vivo Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%