TY - JOUR
T1 - Ultrasound image quality comparison between an inexpensive handheld emergency department (ED) ultrasound machine and a large mobile ED ultrasound system
AU - Blaivas, Michael
AU - Brannam, Larry
AU - Theodoro, Daniel
PY - 2004/7
Y1 - 2004/7
N2 - Questions have been raised regarding image quality (IQ) provided by portable ultrasound (US) machines. Objectives To determine if a difference exists between images obtained with a common portable US machine and those obtained with a more expensive, larger US machine when comparing typical views used by emergency physicians. Methods The authors performed a cross-sectional, blinded comparison of images from similar sonographic windows obtained on healthy models using a SonoSite 180 Plus and a General Electric (GE) 400 US machine. Both machines were optimized by company representatives. Images obtained included typical abdominal and vascular applications using the abdominal and linear transducers on each machine. All images were printed on identical high-resolution printers and then digitized using a bitmap format at 300 dots-per-inch resolution (RES). Images were then cropped, masked, and placed into random order comparing each view per model by a commercial Web design company (loracs.com). Three credentialed emergency physician sonologists, blinded to machine type, rated each image pair for RES, detail (DET), and total IQ as previously defined in the literature using a ten-point Likert scale; 10 was the best rating for each category. Paired t-test, 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and interobserver correlation were calculated. Results A total of 49 image pairs were evaluated. Mean GE 400 RES, DET, and IQ scores were 6.8, 6.8, and 6.6, respectively. Corresponding SonoSite means were 6.3, 6.3, and 6.0, respectively. The difference of 0.5 (95% CI=0.13 to 1.1) for DET was not statistically significant (p=0.06). The differences of 0.5 (95% CI=0.1 to 1.1) and 0.6 (95% CI=0.2 to 1.2) for RES and IQ were statistically significant, with p=0.01 and 0.01. There was good interobserver agreement (κ=0.71; 95% CI=0.67 to 0.78). Conclusions A statistically significant difference was seen between GE 400 and SonoSite in IQ and RES, but not DET.
AB - Questions have been raised regarding image quality (IQ) provided by portable ultrasound (US) machines. Objectives To determine if a difference exists between images obtained with a common portable US machine and those obtained with a more expensive, larger US machine when comparing typical views used by emergency physicians. Methods The authors performed a cross-sectional, blinded comparison of images from similar sonographic windows obtained on healthy models using a SonoSite 180 Plus and a General Electric (GE) 400 US machine. Both machines were optimized by company representatives. Images obtained included typical abdominal and vascular applications using the abdominal and linear transducers on each machine. All images were printed on identical high-resolution printers and then digitized using a bitmap format at 300 dots-per-inch resolution (RES). Images were then cropped, masked, and placed into random order comparing each view per model by a commercial Web design company (loracs.com). Three credentialed emergency physician sonologists, blinded to machine type, rated each image pair for RES, detail (DET), and total IQ as previously defined in the literature using a ten-point Likert scale; 10 was the best rating for each category. Paired t-test, 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and interobserver correlation were calculated. Results A total of 49 image pairs were evaluated. Mean GE 400 RES, DET, and IQ scores were 6.8, 6.8, and 6.6, respectively. Corresponding SonoSite means were 6.3, 6.3, and 6.0, respectively. The difference of 0.5 (95% CI=0.13 to 1.1) for DET was not statistically significant (p=0.06). The differences of 0.5 (95% CI=0.1 to 1.1) and 0.6 (95% CI=0.2 to 1.2) for RES and IQ were statistically significant, with p=0.01 and 0.01. There was good interobserver agreement (κ=0.71; 95% CI=0.67 to 0.78). Conclusions A statistically significant difference was seen between GE 400 and SonoSite in IQ and RES, but not DET.
KW - emergency medicine
KW - emergency ultrasonography
KW - portable ultrasound
KW - ultrasound
KW - ultrasound machine comparison
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=3042652968&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1197/j.aem.2003.12.030
DO - 10.1197/j.aem.2003.12.030
M3 - Article
C2 - 15231471
AN - SCOPUS:3042652968
SN - 1069-6563
VL - 11
SP - 778
EP - 781
JO - Academic Emergency Medicine
JF - Academic Emergency Medicine
IS - 7
ER -