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