Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Reliability and stability of ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter in evaluating hepatic steatosis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Reliability and stability of ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter in evaluating hepatic steatosis
Do you wish to request the book?
Reliability and stability of ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter in evaluating hepatic steatosis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Reliability and stability of ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter in evaluating hepatic steatosis
2024
Overview
Purpose
This study aimed to explore the reliability and stability of ultrasound-guided attenuation parameter (UGAP) values obtained by two measuring methods and different measuring times.
Methods
Patients who underwent liver UGAP examinations in our hospital from September 2022 to December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The clinical data and UGAP measurements results were collected. Two different measuring methods: static single-frame multi-point measuring and dynamic multi-frame single-point measuring, were performed for each patient, and 10 UGAP values of each measuring method were recorded. The medians of the UGAP values of the 1st–3rd, 1st–5th, 1st–7th and 1st–10th by each measuring method were taken as the final UGAP values of measuring 3, 5, 7 and 10 times. The UGAP values obtained by the two different measuring methods and different measuring times (3, 5, 7 or 10 times) were compared.
Results
206 patients were included in this study. There was no statistical difference between UGAP values measured by static single-frame multi-point measuring and dynamic multi-frame single-point measuring (
P
= 0.689,
P
= 0.270,
P
= 0.298,
P
= 0.091), regardless of measuring times (3, 5, 7, 10 times). No significant difference between the UGAP values obtained by 3, 5, 7 and 10 measurements was found (
P
= 0.554,
P
= 0.916).
Conclusion
The UGAP values obtained by the two different measuring methods and different measuring times (3, 5, 7 and 10 times) are stable and reliable. Additionally, 3 times of UGAP measurements might be enough for each patient in clinical practice.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing,Springer Nature B.V
Subject
