Abstract
Evaluating the performance of a diagnostic ultrasound system is important. Above all, establishing standards for such evaluations in an objective and systematic way is critical. However, quality control is currently measured based on subjective judgment of an observer. Against this background, this study intended to suggest quantified and objective data that would enable inter-observer variation to be overcome. Five radiological technologists used an ATS-539 multi-purpose ultrasound phantom to conduct measurements in the predetermined method. A digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM) standard image was obtained in an ultrasound system by using a self-developed software to measure the accuracy of the distance before the 95% confidence interval was calculated. In order to examine the accuracy of the distance in longitudinal and transverse measurements, we conducted t-tests to evaluate the significance for the results of quality control that was performed manually for the past one year and for the results of quality control that was performed by using software with the same equipment. For the longitudinal and the transverse measurements, the 95% confidence intervals were 100.96–101.29 mm and 83.18–84.26 mm, respectively. The computerized longitudinal measurement showed no significant difference from the manual measurement (p > 0.05). The results of measurements using of software showed a higher reproducibility.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
K. R. Dong, S. H. Bae, W. H. Lee, D. C. Kweon, E. H. Goo and W. K. Chung, J. Adv.Engin. Tech. 3, 133 (2010).
P. N. Kim, J. W. Lim, H. C. Kim, Y. C. Yun, D. J. Seong, M. H. Mun, J. S. Kim and J. C. Kim, Korean. J. Radiol. 58, 533 (2008).
M. J. Groth, Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 17, 200 (1994).
N. J. Dudley, N. M. Gibson, M. J. Fleckney and P. D. Clark, Ultrasound. Med. Biol. 28, 1561(2002).
M. Mokhtari-Dizaji, Ultrasound. Med. Biol. 27, 1713 (2001).
J. E. Browne, K. V. Ramnarine, A. J. Watson and P. R. Hoskins. Ultrasound. Med. Biol. 29, 1053 (2003).
M. James and J. Kofler, Quality Assurance of Ultrasound Imagers: Procedures, Expectations and Philosophies, AAPM 43rd Annual Meeting (Salt Lake, July 22–26, 2001).
M. M. Goodsitt, P. L. Carson, S. Witt, D. L. Hykes and J. M. Kofler, Med. Phys. 25, 1385 (1998).
L. Sandra, Ultrasound QC workshop. AAPM 49rd Annual Meeting (Minneapolis, July 22–26, 2007).
F. L. Zheng, QA/QC Ultrasound image. AAPM 45rd Annual Meeting (Sandiego, August 10–14, 2003).
M. Rockville, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM), AIUM Quality Assurance Manual for Gray-Scale Ultrasound Scanners (AIUM Publications, Laurel, 1995).
J. A. Jensen, Ultrasound imaging and its modeling, Chapter for the Springer Verlag Book Imaging of Complex Media with Acoustic and Seismic Waves in the series: Topics in Applied Physics (Springer Verlag, Dubai Media, 2000).
L. Pascal and H. Guillaume, Introduction to the Physics of Ultrasound (Springer, New York, 2011).
D. C. Miller, Sound Waves: their Shape and Speed (Macmillan Co., New York, 1937).
J. E. Browne, A. J. Watson, N. M. Gibson, N. J. Dudley and A. T. Elliott, Ultrasound Med. & Biol. 30, 229 (2004).
N. M. Gibson, N. J. Dudley and K. Griffith, Ultrasound Med. & Biol. 27, 1697 (2001).
J. M. Thijssen, G. Weijers and C. L. de Korte. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 33, 460 (2007).
S. J. Cha, J. Korean. Soc. Ultrasound. Med. 22, 49 (2003).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, YM., Kim, MC., Han, DK. et al. Development of distance accuracy measurement program for quality control of diagnostic ultrasound system. Journal of the Korean Physical Society 63, 2232–2238 (2013). https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.63.2232
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.63.2232