| Autor: |
Malik AEF; Department of Biomedical Engineering, CARIM School for Cardiovascular Diseases, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 50, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands., Giudici A; Department of Biomedical Engineering, CARIM School for Cardiovascular Diseases, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 50, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands.; GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 50, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands., van der Laan KWF; Department of Biomedical Engineering, CARIM School for Cardiovascular Diseases, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 50, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands., Op 't Roodt J; Department of Internal Medicine, CARIM School for Cardiovascular Diseases, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 50, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands., Mess WH; Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, CARIM School for Cardiovascular Diseases, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 50, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands., Delhaas T; Department of Biomedical Engineering, CARIM School for Cardiovascular Diseases, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 50, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands., Spronck B; Department of Biomedical Engineering, CARIM School for Cardiovascular Diseases, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 50, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands.; Macquarie Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, 75 Talavera Rd., Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia., Reesink KD; Department of Biomedical Engineering, CARIM School for Cardiovascular Diseases, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 50, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands. |
| Abstrakt: |
The Esaote MyLab70 ultrasound system has been extensively used to evaluate arterial properties. Since it is reaching end-of-service-life, ongoing studies are forced to seek an alternative, with some opting for the Esaote MyLabOne. Biases might exist between the two systems, which, if uncorrected, could potentially lead to the misinterpretation of results. This study aims to evaluate a potential bias between the two devices. Moreover, by comparing two identical MyLabOne systems, this study also aims to investigate whether biases estimated between the MyLabOne and MyLab70 employed in this study could be generalized to any other pair of similar scanners. Using a phantom set-up, we performed n = 60 measurements to compare MyLab70 to MyLabOne and n = 40 measurements to compare the two MyLabOne systems. Comparisons were performed to measure diameter, wall thickness, and distension. Both comparisons led to significant biases for the diameter (relative bias: −0.27% and −0.30% for the inter- and intra-scanner model, respectively, p < 0.05) and wall thickness (relative bias: 0.38% and −1.23% for inter- and intra-scanner model, respectively p < 0.05), but not for distension (relative bias: 0.48% and −0.12% for inter- and intra-scanner model, respectively, p > 0.05). The biases estimated here cannot be generalized to any other pair of similar scanners. Therefore, longitudinal studies with large sample sizes switching between scanners should perform a preliminary comparison to evaluate potential biases between their devices. Furthermore, caution is warranted when using biases reported in similar comparative studies. Further work should evaluate the presence and relevance of similar biases in human data. |
