Lung ultrasound: A comparison of image interpretation accuracy between curvilinear and phased array transducers

Author:

Walsh Michael H.1,Smyth Leo M.1,Desy Janeve R.12,Fischer Ernest A.3ORCID,Goffi Alberto45ORCID,Li Na2,Lee Matthew1,St‐Pierre Joëlle1,Ma Irene W. Y.12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine University of Calgary Calgary Alberta Canada

2. Department of Community Health Sciences University of Calgary Calgary Alberta Canada

3. Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine MedStar Georgetown University Hospital Washington District of Columbia USA

4. Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine and Department of Medicine University of Toronto Toronto Ontario Canada

5. St. Michael's Hospital and Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Keenan Research Centre Unity Health Toronto Toronto Ontario Canada

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionBoth curvilinear and phased array transducers are commonly used to perform lung ultrasound (LUS). This study seeks to compare LUS interpretation accuracy of images obtained using a curvilinear transducer with those obtained using a phased array transducer.MethodsWe invited 166 internists and trainees to interpret 16 LUS images/cineloops of eight patients in an online survey: eight curvilinear and eight phased array, performed on the same lung location. Images depicted normal lung, pneumothorax, pleural irregularities, consolidation/hepatisation, pleural effusions and B‐lines. Primary outcome for each participant is the difference in image interpretation accuracy scores between the two transducers.ResultsA total of 112 (67%) participants completed the survey. The mean paired accuracy score difference between the curvilinear and phased array images was 3.0% (95% CI: 0.6 to 5.4%, P = 0.015). For novices, scores were higher on curvilinear images (mean difference: 5.4%, 95% CI: 0.9 to 9.9%, P = 0.020). For non‐novices, there were no differences between the two transducers (mean difference: 1.4%, 95% CI: −1.1 to 3.9%, P = 0.263). For pleural‐based findings, the mean of the paired differences between transducers was higher in the novice group (estimated mean difference‐in‐differences: 9.5%, 95% CI: 0.6 to 18.4%; P = 0.036). No difference in mean accuracies was noted between novices and non‐novices for non‐pleural‐based pathologies (estimated mean difference‐in‐differences: 0.6%, 95% CI to 5.4–6.6%; P = 0.837).ConclusionsLung ultrasound images obtained using the curvilinear transducer are associated with higher interpretation accuracy than the phased array transducer. This is especially true for novices interpreting pleural‐based pathologies.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging,Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Evidence‐based innovation in ultrasound practice;Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine;2023-08

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3