Cargando…
Evaluation of ultrasound point shear wave elastography reliability in an elasticity phantom
PURPOSE: To date, limited studies have specifically addressed the reliability of ultrasound point shear-wave elastography (pSWE). Therefore, the aim of the present study was to assess the reproducibility of ultrasound pSWE within and between operators using two ultrasound scanners. METHODS: iU22 and...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Korean Society of Ultrasound in Medicine
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8942736/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35316890 http://dx.doi.org/10.14366/usg.21114 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: To date, limited studies have specifically addressed the reliability of ultrasound point shear-wave elastography (pSWE). Therefore, the aim of the present study was to assess the reproducibility of ultrasound pSWE within and between operators using two ultrasound scanners. METHODS: iU22 and EPIQ7 ultrasound scanners were used to assess the reliability of pSWE measurements of four inclusions [L I (8 kPa), L II (14 kPa), L III (48 kPa), and L IV (80 kPa)] at a depth of 3.5 cm in an elasticity phantom using a curvilinear 5-1 MHz transducer. The intra-operator, inter-operator, and inter-scanner reproducibility of pSWE was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Bland-Altman plots were used to establish bias and limits of agreement (LoA) between measurements. The accuracy of pSWE from manufacturer values was determined using the one-sample t-test. RESULTS: Intra-operator agreement was excellent, with an ICC >0.90. The bias in measurements for operator A was -0.36±3.13 kPa (LoA, -6.47 to 5.75), and for operator B it was 1.97±6.29 kPa (LoA, -10.25 to 14.21). Inter-operator agreement was excellent, with an ICC of 0.95. The bias in measurements between operators was -0.42±5.00 kPa (LoA, -10.24 to 9.38). The inter-scanner agreement between EPIQ7 and iU22 was excellent, with an ICC of 0.96. The bias in measurements between scanners was 1.74±4.44 kPa (LoA, -6.95 to 10.45). There was significant overestimation for L I (17.75%) and L II (31.14%) and underestimation for L III (-15.28%) and L VI (-98.00%) relative to the manufacturer-reported values. CONCLUSION: Phantom ultrasound pSWE was reproducible within and between operators, and between Philips ultrasound scanners; further studies using different ultrasound systems and transducers are required. |
---|