Table 3.
Studies found in the literature that compare two different ultrasound devices for measuring arterial diameter, wall thickness, and distension.
| Variable | Study | Type of Data | Compared Devices | n | Absolute Bias | Relative Bias (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diameter (mm) |
Bozec et al., 2020 [1] | Carotid artery |
Wall tracking system (WTS) and ART.LAB | 188 | 0.119 | 1.8 |
| Palombo et al., 2012 [4] | Carotid artery |
Two RF-based systems | 105 | 0.263 | 3.4 | |
| Morganti et al., 2005 [3] | Carotid artery |
Multigate Doppler system against commercially available ultrasound device | 37 | 0.05 | 0.7 | |
| This study, 2022 | Phantom set-up | Esaote MyLabOne I and MyLab70 | 60 | 0.0339 | 0.27 | |
| Wall thickness (mm) |
Bozec et al., 2020 [1] | Carotid artery |
WTS and ART.LAB | 186 | 0.046 | 6.1 |
| This study, 2022 | Phantom set-up | Esaote MyLabOne I and MyLab70 | 60 | 0.0038 | 0.38 | |
| Distension (µm) | Bozec et al., 2020 [1] | Carotid artery |
WTS and ART.LAB | 181 | 23 | 4.3 |
| Palombo et al., 2012 [4] | Carotid artery | Two RF-based systems | 105 | 91 | 22 | |
| Morganti et al., 2005 [3] | Carotid artery |
Multigate Doppler system against commercially available ultrasound device | 37 | 34 | 6.8 | |
| This study, 2022 | Phantom set-up | Esaote MyLabOne I and MyLab70 | 39 and 60 | 2.9 | 0.48 |
Bold texts highlight the current study.