Evaluation of methods for sizing and counting of ultrasound contrast agents.
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 mi...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2012
|
| _version_ | 1826301445414060032 |
|---|---|
| author | Sennoga, C Yeh, J Alter, J Stride, E Nihoyannopoulos, P Seddon, J Haskard, DO Hajnal, J Tang, M Eckersley, R |
| author_facet | Sennoga, C Yeh, J Alter, J Stride, E Nihoyannopoulos, P Seddon, J Haskard, DO Hajnal, J Tang, M Eckersley, R |
| author_sort | Sennoga, C |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | 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. SonoVue™ was repeatedly (n = 3) sized and counted to validate ES, OM and LD sizing and counting efficacy. Statistical analyses of intra-method variability for the SonoVue™ mean diameter showed that the best microbubble sizing reproducibility was obtained using OM with 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% for OM and 32% for LD. This study showed that no method is fully suited to both sizing and counting of microbubbles. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T05:32:33Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:e2c38251-3fd3-4072-b433-ff09333efecd |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T05:32:33Z |
| publishDate | 2012 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:e2c38251-3fd3-4072-b433-ff09333efecd2022-03-27T10:03:54ZEvaluation of methods for sizing and counting of ultrasound contrast agents.Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:e2c38251-3fd3-4072-b433-ff09333efecdEnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford2012Sennoga, CYeh, JAlter, JStride, ENihoyannopoulos, PSeddon, JHaskard, DOHajnal, JTang, MEckersley, RA 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. SonoVue™ was repeatedly (n = 3) sized and counted to validate ES, OM and LD sizing and counting efficacy. Statistical analyses of intra-method variability for the SonoVue™ mean diameter showed that the best microbubble sizing reproducibility was obtained using OM with 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% for OM and 32% for LD. This study showed that no method is fully suited to both sizing and counting of microbubbles. |
| spellingShingle | Sennoga, C Yeh, J Alter, J Stride, E Nihoyannopoulos, P Seddon, J Haskard, DO Hajnal, J Tang, M Eckersley, R Evaluation of methods for sizing and counting of ultrasound contrast agents. |
| title | Evaluation of methods for sizing and counting of ultrasound contrast agents. |
| title_full | Evaluation of methods for sizing and counting of ultrasound contrast agents. |
| title_fullStr | Evaluation of methods for sizing and counting of ultrasound contrast agents. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of methods for sizing and counting of ultrasound contrast agents. |
| title_short | Evaluation of methods for sizing and counting of ultrasound contrast agents. |
| title_sort | evaluation of methods for sizing and counting of ultrasound contrast agents |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sennogac evaluationofmethodsforsizingandcountingofultrasoundcontrastagents AT yehj evaluationofmethodsforsizingandcountingofultrasoundcontrastagents AT alterj evaluationofmethodsforsizingandcountingofultrasoundcontrastagents AT stridee evaluationofmethodsforsizingandcountingofultrasoundcontrastagents AT nihoyannopoulosp evaluationofmethodsforsizingandcountingofultrasoundcontrastagents AT seddonj evaluationofmethodsforsizingandcountingofultrasoundcontrastagents AT haskarddo evaluationofmethodsforsizingandcountingofultrasoundcontrastagents AT hajnalj evaluationofmethodsforsizingandcountingofultrasoundcontrastagents AT tangm evaluationofmethodsforsizingandcountingofultrasoundcontrastagents AT eckersleyr evaluationofmethodsforsizingandcountingofultrasoundcontrastagents |