Reproducibility of phantom-based quality assurance parameters in real-time ultrasound imaging

Sipilä, O.; Blomqvist, Päivi; Jauhiainen, Mervi; Kilpeläinen, Tiina; Malaska, Paula; Mannila, Vilma; T, Vinnurva-Jussila; Virsula, Sari

doi:10.1258/ar.2011.100227

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They also noted that acceptance or tolerance criteria for any single measure are hard to set and achieve with the subjectively made measurements with large variance. The same difficulties regarding the setting of tolerance criteria in subjective measurements has been also presented by Sipilä et al (2011a). In the work by Hangiandreou et al presented data from a slightly smaller radiological department than covered in our study.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

Routine Ultrasound Quality Assurance in a Multi-Unit Radiology Department: A Retrospective Evaluation of Transducer Failures

Vitikainen

Peltonen

Vartiainen

2017

Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of quality assurance (QA) in medical ultrasound (US) has been widely recognized and recommendations concerning technical QA have been published over the years. However, the demonstrated impact of a properly working QA protocol on clinical routine has been scarce. We investigated the transducer write-off causes for a 5-y period in a multi-unit radiology department with an annual average of 230 transducers in demanding diagnostic use. The transducer faults and the initial observers of the faults leading to transducer write-offs were traced and categorized. The most common cause of transducer write-off was an image uniformity problem or element failure. Mechanical faults or excessive leakage current and defects in the lens constituted smaller yet substantial shares. Our results suggest that a properly working routine QA program can detect majority of the faults before they are reported by users.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

Routine Ultrasound Quality Assurance in a Multi-Unit Radiology Department: A Retrospective Evaluation of Transducer Failures

Vitikainen

Peltonen

Vartiainen

2017

Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A relatively high subjectivity of visual inspection has been reported [25]. However, in the real world, many US units use thermal paper or film as the output method, negating automatic computerized evaluation.…”

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

“…Positioning of the transducer could have contributed to the results, especially with the micro-convex transducers. Also, manual measurements can produce quite large intra- and inter-observer variability (15). The criterion for the defective result in the near field resolution measurement was based on the previous experience and may not have been fair to older transducers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phantom-based quality assurance measurements in B-mode ultrasound

Mannila

Sipilä

2013

Acta Radiologica Short Reports

Self Cite

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

Reproducibility of phantom-based quality assurance parameters in real-time ultrasound imaging

Abstract: The inter-observer variability in measuring phantom-based QA parameters can be relatively high. This should be considered when implementing a phantom-based QA protocol and evaluating the results.

Cited by 6 publications

References 13 publications

Routine Ultrasound Quality Assurance in a Multi-Unit Radiology Department: A Retrospective Evaluation of Transducer Failures

Routine Ultrasound Quality Assurance in a Multi-Unit Radiology Department: A Retrospective Evaluation of Transducer Failures

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