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

Q3 Medicine
Michael H. Walsh, Leo M. Smyth, Janeve R. Desy, Ernest A. Fischer, Alberto Goffi, Na Li, Matthew Lee, Joëlle St-Pierre, Irene W. Y. Ma
{"title":"Lung ultrasound: A comparison of image interpretation accuracy between curvilinear and phased array transducers","authors":"Michael H. Walsh,&nbsp;Leo M. Smyth,&nbsp;Janeve R. Desy,&nbsp;Ernest A. Fischer,&nbsp;Alberto Goffi,&nbsp;Na Li,&nbsp;Matthew Lee,&nbsp;Joëlle St-Pierre,&nbsp;Irene W. Y. Ma","doi":"10.1002/ajum.12347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Both 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A 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).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Lung 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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36517,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","volume":"26 3","pages":"150-156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajum.12347","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajum.12347","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction

Both 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

A 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).

Conclusions

Lung 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.

Abstract Image

肺超声:曲线换能器与相控阵换能器图像解释精度的比较
曲线换能器和相控阵换能器通常用于肺超声(LUS)。本研究旨在比较使用曲线换能器与使用相控阵换能器获得的图像的LUS解释精度。方法我们邀请了166名内科医生和实习生,对8名患者的16张LUS图像/电影线进行了在线调查:8张曲线和8张相控阵,在同一肺部位置进行。图像显示正常肺、气胸、胸膜不规则、实变/肝变、胸膜积液和b线。每个参与者的主要结果是两个传感器之间图像解释精度得分的差异。结果共112人(67%)完成调查。曲线图像与相控阵图像的平均配对精度评分差为3.0% (95% CI: 0.6 ~ 5.4%, P = 0.015)。对于新手,曲线图像的得分更高(平均差异:5.4%,95% CI: 0.9至9.9%,P = 0.020)。对于非新手,两种传感器之间没有差异(平均差异:1.4%,95% CI: - 1.1至3.9%,P = 0.263)。对于基于胸膜的结果,新手组换能器之间配对差异的平均值更高(估计平均差异中的差异:9.5%,95% CI: 0.6至18.4%;p = 0.036)。对于非胸膜病变,新手和非新手的平均准确率没有差异(估计平均差中差:0.6%,95% CI为5.4-6.6%;p = 0.837)。结论曲线换能器获得的肺超声图像比相控阵换能器具有更高的解释精度。对于解释胸膜病理的新手来说尤其如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine
Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信