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 1Â 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.
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.
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.
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.
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-FĂ©lix 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.
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.
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
Corresponding author
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.
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42600-020-00078-4