eprintid: 1398676
rev_number: 35
eprint_status: archive
userid: 608
dir: disk0/01/39/86/76
datestamp: 2013-07-05 10:29:22
lastmod: 2021-09-19 23:47:48
status_changed: 2013-07-05 10:29:22
type: article
metadata_visibility: show
item_issues_count: 0
creators_name: Sennoga, CA
creators_name: Yeh, JSM
creators_name: Alter, J
creators_name: Stride, E
creators_name: Nihoyannopoulos, P
creators_name: Seddon, JM
creators_name: Haskard, DO
creators_name: Hajnal, JV
creators_name: Tang, M-X
creators_name: Eckersley, RJ
title: Evaluation of Methods for Sizing and Counting of Ultrasound Contrast Agents
ispublished: pub
divisions: UCL
divisions: B04
divisions: C05
divisions: F52
note: This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
abstract: A precise, accurate and well documented method for the sizing and counting of microbubbles is essential for all aspects of quantitative microbubble-enhanced ultrasound imaging. The efficacy of (a) electro-impedance volumetric zone sensing (ES) also called a Coulter counter/multisizer; (b) optical microscopy (OM); and (c) laser diffraction (LD), for the sizing and counting of microbubbles was assessed. Microspheres with certified mean diameter and number concentration were used to assess sizing and counting reproducibility (precision) and reliability (accuracy) of ES, OM and LD. SonoVueTM was repeatedly (n 5 3) sized and counted to validate ES, OM and LD sizing and counting efficacy. Statistical analyses of intra-method variability for the SonoVueTM mean diameter showed that the best microbubble sizing reproducibility was obtained usingOMwith a mean diameter sizing variability of 1.1%, compared with a variability of 4.3% for ES and 7.1% for LD. The best microbubble counting reproducibility was obtained using ES with a number concentration variability of 8.3%, compared with a variability of 22.4% forOMand 32% for LD. This study showed that no method is fully suited to both sizing and counting of microbubbles.
date: 2012-05
official_url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.01.012
vfaculties: VENG
oa_status: green
language: eng
primo: open
primo_central: open_green
article_type_text: Article
verified: verified_manual
elements_source: Manually entered
elements_id: 883591
doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.01.012
lyricists_name: Stride, Eleanor
lyricists_id: EPJST43
full_text_status: public
publication: Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
volume: 38
number: 5
pagerange: 834 - 845
issn: 0301-5629
citation:        Sennoga, CA;    Yeh, JSM;    Alter, J;    Stride, E;    Nihoyannopoulos, P;    Seddon, JM;    Haskard, DO;             ... Eckersley, RJ; + view all <#>        Sennoga, CA;  Yeh, JSM;  Alter, J;  Stride, E;  Nihoyannopoulos, P;  Seddon, JM;  Haskard, DO;  Hajnal, JV;  Tang, M-X;  Eckersley, RJ;   - view fewer <#>    (2012)    Evaluation of Methods for Sizing and Counting of Ultrasound Contrast Agents.                   Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology , 38  (5)   834 - 845.    10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.01.012 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.01.012>.       Green open access   
 
document_url: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1398676/1/1398676.pdf