Talk:Medical ultrasound

message: This article contains contradictory figures for the ranges of ultrasound used in medical ultrasonography. 15 MHz, 18 MHz, and 20 MHz are all listed as upper limits of the range of frequencies used. User:Madmonk325  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frequency Range Contradiction

message: This article really needs images! --WS 01:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I am responding to the RFC placed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine. The word "ultrasonography" is derived from the word "ultrasonic" which is commonly defined as frequencies greater than 20,000 or 30,000 Hz. If an imaging technique is using frequencies greater than 20,000 or 30,000 Hz, then it is ultrasonography. Per the article, "[t]he frequencies used for medical imaging are generally in the range of 1 to 10 MHz", so my vote is for ultrasonography. Edwardian 06:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC Project Clinical Medicine

message: I disagree with recent merger of 'Pelvic ultrasound' to this page for a number of reasons:
*This is a particular application of ultrasound imaging and has no greater claim to warrant its own individual paragraph or section than the other listed applications (e.g. Obstetric ultrasound or Echocardiography).
*Other major applications of ultrasound imaging have their own pages (e.g. Obstetric or Echocardiography), so why should not Pelvic ultrasound ?   I agree it was short (a stub), but its existence allowed the article to be expanded and improved.
*I think a different merger is preferable: merge of Gynecologic ultrasonography into Pelvic ultrasound 
**Pelvic ultrasound, whether trans-abdominally/vaginally/rectally, is obviously of female reproductive system, but also of bladder & other pelvic structures and so is applicable for non-gynaecological reasons and indeed in men too.
**All Gynaecology ultrasound scans involve a Pelvic Ultrasound, but the converse is not true (not all pelvic ultrasound scans are for gynaecological reasons).
**I would therefore propose a merge of Gynecologic ultrasonography (a term not used at all in the UK) into Pelvic ultrasound (chest/respiratory physicians don't ask for a 'Respiratory X-ray' but rather a 'Chest X-ray', nephrologists ask not for a 'Nephrology ultrasound' but a 'renal ultrasound' etc).
*If consensus agrees, then I'll place the appropriate tags on the relevant pages (following Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages procedures) for a week to notify editors.
David Ruben  Talk  00:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pelvic Ultrasound

message: I have just read this entry over and had to fix a few items. One serious mistake is that the entry suggested that each image line is formed by a single transducer element of an array.  This is incorrect as each line is formed by a number of elements. I have also added a couple of photographs and a couple of images. I hope this helps. Cheers! -Drickey 18:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice!! Those pictures are great, esp the doppler ones. I don't suppose you could get some video or sound (of the doppler)? This could be a featured article with some more work. -Ravedave 23:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No, they're dedicated devices. A study in the Lancet a couple of years back showed that ultrasound of the calcaneus was reasonably sensitive to detect osteoporosis. More straightforward than DEXA anyway. I'm not sure how much clinical use it enjoys. JFW | T@lk 21:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall correctly, studies (I forget whether the one in the Lancet you are thinking of or subsequent ones) showed poor correlation of bone ultrasound measurement to actual hip fractures, compared to the current gold-standard of DEXA. David Ruben  Talk  01:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors

message: It is a common misconconseption that medical ultrasound uses the doppler effect to measure bloodflow in limited spatial areas. The doppler effect can only be used to measure average velocity across the entire beam, using continous-wave "pulses". Almost all velocity-measurements in use today are based on the autocorrelation technique , which offers velocity measurements with spatial resolution, thus enabling the creation of "color-flow" images, superimposed over ordinary ultrasound images. --Fredrik Orderud 20:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this last statement is incorrect, or at least not clear. The autocorrelation technique published by Kasai and used for all (or most) colour Doppler measurements is simply a fast method of determining the mean frequency (or phase) shift. It has *nothing* to do with the physics of the signal generation. A number of years ago, Philips Ultrasound built a scanner called the P700 that used true cross-correlation of the RF pulses to measure velocity.  As far as I know, all current scanners use something that is arguably the Doppler shift for spectral, colour, and power Doppler.  One can show that there are differences in the way that pulsed & continuous wave instruments deal with their signals, but this is not the place to discuss it. Drickey 15:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: My point was that the "doppler sonography" discussed in the article has nothing to do with dopper shifts, and this should be made clear in the text. Velocity measurements are instead made possible by transmitting many pulses in the same direction over a very short period of time, and measuring relative movement between each pulse.  Any frequency shifts encountered in processing is only a consequence of the choise of using complex demodulated data for processing. The technique is basically the same as Pulse-doppler radar. --Fredrik Orderud 17:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This is far too esoteric for a mention on this page. However, don't forget that many of these scanners can also operate in continuous-wave Doppler mode, which is true Doppler.  The Doppler/not Doppler argument is a fun accademic discussion; I can email you a write up if you wish.Drickey 19:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doppler error

message: I was just curious, does anyone think people's ideas on dolphins picking up on people's emotions with their animal echolocation might extend to ultrasonographic uses? Maybe there's research into it... I think there might be something like that with dogs too, though that might be more scent-linked. Tyciol 06:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dolphins?

message: changed wikilink from resolution to Angular resolution. please change this to a different page if you know better then I do  STHayden [ Talk ] 01:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Angular resolution isn't quite right since in ultrasound, the distance to the object is measured.  The term I use when teaching imaging physics is "spatial resolution", which is mentioned under "image resolution".  However the "image resolution" page looks like it needs some work.  Drickey 19:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  resolution 

message: A very good and interesting article on medical ultrasonography. I have noted that through-transmission ultrasonography is not mentioned ( as used for example in quantitative ultrasound to assess bone density ). Should that be included in this article or should it be the subject of a separate article ? Dr. Imbeau 02:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Through-transmission for bone-densitometry should be a separate entry since it's a very different technique.Drickey 19:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Through-transmission ultrasonography vs pulse echo 

message: One of the external links is clearly not in keeping with Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy.  It is a link to real-time, "high resolution" images of fetal development, which is basically a pro-life website.
Yes, it's clearly a religious anti-abortion site and I'm therefore removing it. Smiles Aloud 21:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you know that deleting biased information is also a violation of NPOV? In particular,  using lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link Should Be Removed 

message: The section Therapeutic applications doesn't belong on this page.  "Ultrasonography" refers primarily to imaging & Doppler exams. Drickey
:I agree.  I suggest we move the section to "Therapeutic ultrasound" and provide a link.  Ultrasonography is definitely not therapeutic ultrasound. --Slashme 10:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Therapeutic applications 

message: The section on Doppler ultrasound is somewhat confused and misleading.  Continuous wave ultrasound is used on modern ultrasound scanners, primarily for cardiac applications.  The comment that the ultrasound pulse is not Doppler shifted is incorrect: the pulse is frequency-shifted, but the scanner does not use this information.  
It would make sense to make a separate Doppler Ultrasound page where some of the details can be discussed.
Daniel W. RIckey Drickey  15:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about that. Thanks for clearing it up. Sjschen (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doppler Ultrasound 

message: A copy from the spectrograph discussion: Where sonograph redirects to spectrograph, sonography redirects to medical ultrasonography. This does not seem consistent, should we change this? --130.89.139.73 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to be correct as is: though the terms are very similar, they are (AFAICT) used separately in these separate fields. 87.114.8.169 (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:   This terminology is relatively new, less than 30 years.  It is in flux because ultrasound is the historical term, as you understand I am sure, a noun meaning sound frequencies above normal human hearing (around 20,000 Hertz).   Sonography was coined around 1980 by Joan Baker, a radiographer from Great Britain.   The term sonography has been widely adopted in the USA, Canada, Australia, and other places.   Ultrasound is common also because of the history.   Not sure we should try to restrain or direct the natural evolution of language here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuBose (talk • contribs) 21:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  sonograph vs. sonography 

message: The descriptions of Doppler colour standards read like a personal rant.
Why say "Some laboratories insist on showing arteries as red and veins as blue"; which seems opinionated -- just state the facts.
And then "Other laboratories use red to indicate flow toward the transducer and blue away from the transducer which is the reverse of 150 years of astronomical literature on the Doppler effect" sounds like someone trying to show off that they know something about the Doppler effect. 
You might as well ask why people often represent cold as blue and hot as red, when this is the inverse of the way black body radiation works. Or simply ask why different colours are used in doppler sonography at all, when it has nothing to do with colour.
The answer of course is that we can choose whatever standard we like when representing data; whatever we think is clearest.--MijinLaw (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed this now to remove the rant-ish language --MijinLaw (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doppler rant 

message: In the Producing a sound wave section, there is a citation which is out of standard procedure for wikipedia. Is there a reason for this or can we make a proper citation? Derokh (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-Article Sourcing 

message: There is an excellent reference on ultrasound safety, which could be downloaded free of charge.  It is, 
Guidelines for the safe use of diagnostic ultrasound equipment Prepared by the Safety Group of the British Medical Ultrasound Society
Ultrasound 2010; 18: 52–59. DOI: 10.1258/ult.2010.100003
http://ult.rsmjournals.com/content/18/2/52.full.pdf
This should be added to the references.
Drickey (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  safety reference 

message: I've found what I believe to be the correct citation for the line "When balancing risk and reward, there are recommendations to avoid the use of routine ultrasound for low risk pregnancies." Which is referenced elsewhere as being from ACOG, specifically this article http://www.mdfpcases.org/ob/articles/ultrasoundacog.pdf
Although after reading it I didn't find it to specifically recommend avoiding routine ultrasound for low risk pregnancies. Should this be added as a citation or the line marked as a misrepresentation?
Penelaine (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: In the article, it says "Sonographers are medical professionals who perform scans which are then typically interpreted by radiologists, physicians ..., or by cardiologists". Why like this? The sonographers are not able to do so? or they are not allowed to do so? Jackzhp (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpretation

message: New ultrasound technology - Acoustoelastography - EchoSoft from University of Wisconsin-Madison (Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation) and Echometrix - waves not just for vision, but give quantitative data about mechanical characteristics and properties, like stiffness, and functional status of musculoskeletal (tendon and ligament) tissue
Someone at http://www.sorehand.org/ (repetitive strain injury mailing list) posted a link about a new type of ultrasound technology.
http://www.news.wisc.edu/23139
Echometrix was just granted a patent on September 19.
http://wisconsintechnologycouncil.com/newsroom/?ID=2708
Should there be a Acoustoelastography section under Elastography?
I grabbed some search results from the top of Google scholar.
>(Research has shown that Google Scholar puts high weight especially oncitation counts[20]and words included in a document's title.[21]As a consequence the first search results are often highly cited articles.)
I'll dump some of what I found so far here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iCJE0d1cpUneSrtiEK3oi2H9nuYX812gL6g1rFdfP20/edit#
If you have the time, it's worth reading some of it.
I grabbed the most prominent articles, extracted abstracts, introductions, and concluding discussions, segmented by sentences, made headings, and created a table of contents.
The various articles frequently reference the same thing, so as you read, you sort of get the gist of what they're talking about.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bboyjkang2 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New ultrasound technology - Acoustoelastography - EchoSoft from University of Wisconsin-Madison and Echometrix - give quantitative data about mechanical properties, like stiffness, and status of musculoskeletal (tendon and ligament) tissue 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Medical ultrasonography.  I managed to add archive links to 2 , and attempted to repair misformatting on 2 other .
I have been unable to archive 0  and have therefore tagged  as dead.
Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct.  If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with  to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further.  Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving on comment on this post.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources modified on [[Medical ultrasonography]] 

message: Hello.  I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page.  This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.
This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link.Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.
* http://hcp.obgyn.net/ultrasound/content/article/1760982/1906113
* http://books.google.com/books?id=Hwb5D60vb5IC&pg=PA422
* http://www.auntminnie.com/index.aspx?sec=ser&sub=def&pag=dis&ItemID=91487
* http://sonoworld.com/Client/Fetus/html/doppler/capitulos-html/chapter_02.htmm
* http://books.google.com/books?id=DForAgAAQBAJ
In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive the page.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trouble archiving links on the article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Medical ultrasound. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090617183301/http://www.obgyn.net:80/ultrasound/ultrasound.asp?page=feature/doppler_history/history_ultrasound to http://www.obgyn.net/ultrasound/ultrasound.asp?page=feature/doppler_history/history_ultrasound
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131029213232/http://www.icus-society.org/attachments/article/103/ICUS%20CEUS%20Use%20Around%20the%20World-2.pdf to http://www.icus-society.org/attachments/article/103/ICUS%20CEUS%20Use%20Around%20the%20World-2.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131011213605/http://wmis2013.omnibooksonline.com/data/papers/P380.htm to http://wmis2013.omnibooksonline.com/data/papers/P380.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: July 2015 "CFCF moved page Medical ultrasonography to Medical ultrasound over redirect" - At the moment this page says it is just about use of [ultra]sound for imaging. I'm looking for non-imaging use (eg to diagnose osteoporosis). I think we need a separate article on non-imaging use of [ultra]sound in medicine - (diagnostic or therapeutic) - and then rename this article back before it gets updated with non-imaging (or therapeutic) content. - Any objections ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New name confusing/dangerous - implies wider than just imaging 

message: Hello! I noticed a few things about this article that could be edited, and I had some suggestions. There is a section called “Diagnostic application” that does not feature sources for the information. There is also a table of how different areas of medicine use the ultrasound, but there are no citations here as well. WebMD was used as a source for one part of the article and I’m not sure if this is a reliable source. There is also one source that is from a website called ShoulderUS.com, which does not appear to be a medical journal or something like that. The first reference was a journal article from 1985, which seems a bit outdated. There are also links to Wikipedia pages that don’t exist, such as “Thrombosonography, venosonography, and arterial sonography.” My main suggestion would be to find some scholarly, peer-reviewed articles from medical journals about this topic, and provide citations for more areas of the article, including the citations that are not from a reliable, notable source--Doddsrac (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Medical ultrasound. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120626122956/http://www.efsumb.org/ecmus/ecmus-ss-uk.asp to http://www.efsumb.org/ecmus/ecmus-ss-uk.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does 2nd image depict correct technique? Peerzada Mohammad Iflaq (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Reason as Nominator: I just came across this image  which shows the imaging of carotid artery by medical ultrasound being done, But the transducer is placed perpendicular (90 degree) to the artery. And the result is shown with good peaks on it. It seems contradictory as the impact of the angle on the Doppler shift will be greatest when the angle of incidence is 0 degrees (cos 0 degrees is 1) and least when the angle of incidence is 90 degrees (when the probe is exactly perpendicular to the source, the cos 90 degrees is 0. At 90 degree the singal will be very less and an angle below 60 degree is preferred for imaging. It creates confusion. External links  Peerzada Mohammad Iflaq (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Peerzada Mohammad Iflaq, have you been able to find a better image? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Iflaq, I think your signature is wrong inside of Special:Preferences WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

text: It does. Right next to the pulse wave doppler image (C) there is a color flow image, with the artery shown as you'd see it placing the probe as shown on the image (i.e., parallel to the artery). NikosGouliaros (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image related Isuue 

message: — Assignment last updated by DarthVetter (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Composition I - Writing Wikipedia