Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Metrological assessment of image quality in ultrasonic medical diagnostic equipment

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Research on Biomedical Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This paper presents a model for estimating uncertainty of measurement of performance parameters commonly used in the evaluation of ultrasound images. These are axial and lateral resolutions, contrast detail, spherical void, dead zone, image uniformity, measurement system accuracy, display and recording errors, vertical and horizontal distance accuracy, and anechoic object perception.

Methods

These parameters were measured by two technicians following the recommendations of document IEC/TS 61390:1996, using a phantom, and the model of uncertainty proposed based on the guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (BIPM JCGM 100:2008). Moreover, an evaluation was carried out after 1 year to assess changes in the equipment image quality tested.

Results

In the assessment of operator influence on measurements, it was found that there is no statistical evidence that measurement results are different among most of the parameters. The results of three parameters were considered different between the two operators: contrast-detail resolution, display and recording errors, and measurement system accuracy. When considering the normalized error in comparison to the measurements made by the same operator under the same conditions in two consecutive years, no parameter showed a difference, given the level of uncertainty practiced.

Conclusion

It is noteworthy that the proposed model of uncertainty contributes as an unprecedented way for metrological evaluation of diagnostic imaging by ultrasound.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • BIPM JCGM 100:2008. Evaluation of Measurement Data – Guide of the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurements. 2008. https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/jcgm_100_2008_e.pdf. Accessed 20 Out 2016.

  • BIPM JCGM 200:2012. International Vocabulary of Metrology – Basic and general concepts and associated terms. 2012. https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/jcgm_200_2012.pdf.Accessed 20 Out 2016.

  • Browne JE, Watson AJ, Dudley NJ GNM, Elliott AT. Objective measurements of image quality. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2003.10.002.

  • Chatfield C. Statistics for technology. A course in applied statistics. 3rd ed. London: Chapman and Hall; 1983.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cozzolino P, Stramare R, Udilano A, Castoro M, Scagliori E, Beltrame V, et al. Quality control of ultrasound transducers: analysis of evaluation parameters and results of a survey of 116 transducers in a single hospital. Radiol Med. 2010;115:668–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-010-0533-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filho SA, Rodrigues EP, Elias JJ, Carneiro AO. A computational tool as support in B-mode ultrasound diagnostic quality control. Rev Bras Eng Biomed. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-3151.0644.

  • Gibson NM, Dudley NJ, Griffith KA. Computerized quality control testing system for B-mode ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001;27:1697–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-5629(01)00479-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodsitt MM, Carson PL, Witt S, Hykes DL, Kofler JM. Real-time B-mode ultrasound quality control test procedures. Report of AAPM Ultrasound Task Group No. 1. Medical Physics. 1998. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598404.

  • International Electrotechnical Commission Technical Specification IEC/TS 61390. Ultrasonics – real-time pulse-echo systems – test procedures to determine performance specifications. 1st ed. Genève, Suisse; 1996.

  • International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 60601-2-37:2007/AMD1:2015. Amendment 1 - Medical electrical equipment - Part 2–37: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of ultrasonic medical diagnostic and monitoring equipment. 2nd ed. 2015.

  • International Organization for Standardization. ISO 13485:2016. Medical devices - quality management systems - requirements for regulatory purposes. 3rd ed. 2016.

  • King DM, Hangiandreou NJ, Tradup DJ, Stekel SF. Assessment of three methods for detection of ultrasound artifacts. Med Phys. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3656955.

  • Mannila V, Sipilä O. Phantom-based quality assurance measurements in B-mode ultrasound. Acta Radiol Short Rep. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047981613511967.

  • Santos TQ, Alvarenga AV, Oliveira D, Souza RM, Costa-Felix RPB. Metrological validation of a measurement procedure for the characterization of a biological ultrasound tissue-mimicking material. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.09.007.

  • Sipilä O, Mannila V, Vartiainen E. Quality assurance in diagnostic ultrasound. Eur J Radiol. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.015.

  • Souza RM, Alvarenga AV, Braz DS, Petrella LI, Costa-Félix RPB. Uncertainty evaluation of dead zone of diagnostic ultrasound equipment. J Phys. Conference Series (Online). 2016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/733/1/012043.

  • Thijssen JM, Wijk MC, Cuypers MH. Performance testing of medical echo/Doppler equipment. Eur J Ultrasound. 2002;15:151–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-8266(02)00037-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wijk MC, Thijssen JM. Performance testing of medical ultrasound equipment: fundamental vs. harmonic mode. Ultrasonics. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0041-624X(02)00177-4.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (Grant: 309717/2014-0) and the Carlos Chagas Filho Research Support Foundation (FAPERJ).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Ultrasound, National Institute of Metrology, Quality and Technology, Duque de Caxias, Brazil

    Raquel Monteiro Souza, André Victor Alvarenga & Rodrigo P. B. Costa-Felix

  2. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Pole ll of the University of Coimbra, 3030-290, Coimbra, Portugal

    Lorena Itati Petrella

Authors
  1. Raquel Monteiro Souza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. André Victor Alvarenga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lorena Itati Petrella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rodrigo P. B. Costa-Felix
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to André Victor Alvarenga.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

The comparison between the results achieved by operators 1 and 2 are presented on Table 19, while the results from the comparison between the baseline and 1-year-later evaluation are presented in Table 20.

Table 19 Comparison between the operators in measurements (cells filled with black color refer to measurements that could not be combined)
Full size table
Table 20 Comparison of the posterior evaluation
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Souza, R.M., Alvarenga, A.V., Petrella, L.I. et al. Metrological assessment of image quality in ultrasonic medical diagnostic equipment. Res. Biomed. Eng. 36, 379–397 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42600-020-00078-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42600-020-00078-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation