Literature DB >> 29949119

Quality assurance of ultrasound systems: current status and review of literature.

H Grazhdani1, E David2, O Ventura Spagnolo3, F Buemi3, A Perri4, N Orsogna5, S Gigli5, R Chimenz6.   

Abstract

Diagnostic ultrasound (US) images can be obtained from a quality device, in optimal working conditions, combined with the capable actions of the operator in tweaking the equipment's characteristics. The quality assurance (QA) is the topic of this review article, and it is addressed in an US practice through proper selection of the equipment when purchasing, and through care and preventive maintenance of the machine for ensuring accurate performance. For optimal US system functioning, QA steps carried out on the basis of a scheduled program are needed in any US practice or department. It is critical to confirm in a semiannual or annual basis that the image quality is maintained according to standards and any subtle change in equipment's functioning is detected and amended at an early stage. The use of test objects (also called US testing phantoms) is required above the basic level of QA testing. The scope of this review article is to inform the US user about necessary QA knowledge and at the same time, present the state of the art of the most suitable test methods for US QA. We referred to relevant publications, selected after performing a systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases, and also to the standards established by authoritative international societies.

Keywords:  Quality assurance; Test objects; Ultrasound; Ultrasound phantoms

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29949119      PMCID: PMC6113186          DOI: 10.1007/s40477-018-0304-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Ultrasound        ISSN: 1876-7931


  13 in total

1.  The importance of quality management in fetal measurement.

Authors:  N J Dudley; E Chapman
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 7.299

2.  A review of two alternative ultrasound quality assurance programmes.

Authors:  N J Dudley; K Griffith; G Houldsworth; M Holloway; M A Dunn
Journal:  Eur J Ultrasound       Date:  2001-03

3.  Evaluation of a low-cost liquid ultrasound test object for detection of transducer artefacts.

Authors:  Deirdre M King; Nicholas J Hangiandreou; Donald J Tradup; Scott F Stekel
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-11-16       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  High incidence of defective ultrasound transducers in use in routine clinical practice.

Authors:  Mattias Mårtensson; Mats Olsson; Björn Segall; Alan G Fraser; Reidar Winter; Lars-Ake Brodin
Journal:  Eur J Echocardiogr       Date:  2008-10-22

5.  Four-year experience with a clinical ultrasound quality control program.

Authors:  Nicholas J Hangiandreou; Scott F Stekel; Donald J Tradup; Krzysztof R Gorny; Deirdre M King
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2011-06-16       Impact factor: 2.998

6.  Prospective evaluation of Quasistatic Ultrasound Elastography (USE) compared with Baseline US for parotid gland lesions: preliminary results of elasticity contrast index (ECI) evaluation.

Authors:  Vito Cantisani; Emanuele David; Armando De Virgilio; Paul S Sidhu; Hektor Grazhdani; Antonio Greco; Marco De Vincentiis; Alessandro Corsi; Flaminia De Cristofaro; Luca Brunese; Fabrizio Calliada; Alfredo Blandino; Mario Tombolini; Giorgio Ascenti; Roberto Stramare; Marcello Caratozzolo; Ferdinando D'Ambrosio
Journal:  Med Ultrason       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 1.611

7.  Technical Note: A new phantom design for routine testing of Doppler ultrasound.

Authors:  J V Grice; D R Pickens; R R Price
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Ultrasound quality assurance and equipment governance.

Authors:  Stephen Russell
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2013-12-20

9.  Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Andriy I Bandos; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Roberta A Jong; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-12-28       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Imaging acquisition display performance: an evaluation and discussion of performance metrics and procedures.

Authors:  Michael S Silosky; Rebecca M Marsh; Ann L Scherzinger
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.