Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 958

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

WFUMB Guidelines and Recommendations for Clinical Use of Ultrasound Elastography: Part 1: Basic Principles and Terminology

Open access
Shiina, Tsuyoshi, Nightingale, Kathryn R., Palmeri, Mark L., Hall, Timothy J., Bamber, Jeffrey C., Barr, Richard G., Castera, Laurent, Choi, Byung Ihn, Chou, Yi-Hong, Cosgrove, David, Dietrich, Christoph F., Ding, Hong, Amy, Dominique, Farrokh, Andre, Ferraioli, Giovanna, Filice, Carlo, Friedrich-Rust, Mireen, Nakashima, Kazutaka, Schafer, Fritz, Sporea, Ioan, Suzuki, Shinichi, Wilson, Stephanie, Kudo, Masatoshi·2015·Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology

Abstract

Conventional diagnostic ultrasound images of the anatomy (as opposed to blood flow) reveal differences in the acoustic properties of soft tissues (mainly echogenicity but also, to some extent, attenuation), whereas ultrasound-based elasticity images are able to reveal the differences in the elastic properties of soft tissues (e.g., elasticity and viscosity). The benefit of elasticity imaging lies in the fact that many soft tissues can share similar ultrasonic echogenicities but may have different mechanical properties that can be used to clearly visualize normal anatomy and delineate pathologic lesions. Typically, all elasticity measurement and imaging methods introduce a mechanical excitation and monitor the resulting tissue response. Some of the most widely available commercial elasticity imaging methods are 'quasi-static' and use external tissue compression to generate images of the resulting tissue strain (or deformation). In addition, many manufacturers now provide shear wave imaging and measurement methods, which deliver stiffness images based upon the shear wave propagation speed. The goal of this review is to describe the fundamental physics and the associated terminology underlying these technologies. We have included a questions and answers section, an extensive appendix, and a glossary of terms in this manuscript. We have also endeavored to ensure that the terminology and descriptions, although not identical, are broadly compatible across the WFUMB and EFSUMB sets of guidelines on elastography (Bamber et al. 2013; Cosgrove et al. 2013).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2015.03.009

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Shiina, T., Nightingale, K. R., Palmeri, M. L., Hall, T. J., Bamber, J. C., Barr, R. G., Castera, L., Choi, B. I., Chou, Y.-H., Cosgrove, D., Dietrich, C. F., Ding, H., Amy, D., Farrokh, A., Ferraioli, G., Filice, C., Friedrich-Rust, M., Nakashima, K., Schafer, F., Sporea, I., Suzuki, S., Wilson, S., & Kudo, M.
Venue
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-05
Volume
41
Issue
5
Pages
1126-1147
ISSN
0301-5629 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2127119044
Cited by
958
References
0
FWCI
60.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.