ГОСТ Р МЭК 61391-2—2012
Библиография
11J ALIUM (1990). Standard Methods (or Measuring Periormance of Pulse-Echo Ultrasound Imaging Equipment.
American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine 14750 Sweitzer Lane. Laurel. MD20707
(2] GOODSITT M.. CARSON P.L.. WITT S.. HYKES D.I., and KOFLER J.M. Real Time В-mode Ultrasound Quality
Conirol Test Procedures. Med. Physics. 1998. 25. pp. 1385— 1406
J3) SHI H. AL-SADAH J., MACKIE T.. 2AG2EBSKI J. Signal to noise ratio estimates of ultrasound depth of penetration.
Med. Physics. 2003. 30 (6): 1367—1367 June (Abstract)
(4] USTUNER K. and HOLLEY G. Ultrasound Imaging System Performance Assessment. In Proceedings of the 2003
Meeting of the American Association of Physicists In Medicine. Pittsburgh. PA. USA. July. Text available at:
hltpi/.’www.aapm.orqi’meetlnqs.OSAMi’ odfi9905—9858. pdf. AAPM Symposium. 2003
(5] GORNY K.R.. TRADUP D.J.. BERNAT2 S.. STEKEL S.. and HANGIANDREOU N.J. Evaluation of automated OOP
measurement for the purpose of ultrasound scanner comparison. J Ultrasound Med. 1004. 23, S76 (Abstract)
(6] GORNY K.R. TRADUP D.J. HANGIANDREOU N.J. Implementation and validation of three automated methods for
measunng maximum depth of penetration: application to ultrasound quality control. Med. Phys. 2004. Aug.32 (8), pp.
2615—2628
(7] TRADUP D. JOHNSON L.. STEKEL S.. HANGIANDREOU N. Initial experience with an automated system for
measuring ultrasound image quality. J. Ultrasound Med. 2005. 26: S230, March. (Abstract)
(8] GIBSON N.. DUDLEY N.. and GRIFFITH K. A computerized quality control testing system for В-mode ultrasound.
Ultrasound Med & Biol. 2001. 27. pp. 1697— 1711
(9] ICRU Report 61 (1998): Tissue Substitutes. Phantoms and Computational Modelling In Medical Ultrasound.
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Bethesda. MD. USA
(10] MADSEN E.. 2AG2EBSKI J.. BANJAVIC R. and JUTILA R. Tissue-mimicking materials for ultrasound phantoms.
Medical Physics. 1978. 5. pp. 391—394
(11] MADSEN E. «Ultrasonically soft-Ussue-mimlcking materials*. In The Medical Physics of CTand Ultrasound: Tissue
Imaging and Characterization. Fullerton G. and 2agzebski J.. editors. AAPM Monograph 6. American Association of
Physicists n Medicine. 335 E. 45th Street. New York. NY. 10017. pp 531—550. 1980
(12] MADSEN E.. 2AG2EBSKI J.. MACDONALD M. and FRANK G. Ultrasound focal lesion detectability phantoms.
Medical Physics. 1991. 18. pp. 1171 — 1180
(13] MADSEN E..2AG2EBSKI J.. MEDINA I. FRANK G.. Performance Testing of Transrectal US Scanners. Radiology.
1994, 190 (1). pp. 77—80
(14] MADSEN E.L. FRANK G.R. Dong F. Liquid or solid ultrasonically lissue-mimicklng materials with very low scatter.
Ultrasound Med & Biol. 1998. 24 (4). pp. 535—542
(15] WILSON T.. 2AG2EBSK J., LI Y.D. A test phantom for estanating changes in the effective frequency of an ultrasonic
scanner. J. Ultrasound In Med. 2002. 21 (9). pp. 937—945
(16] THIJSSEN J.M.. WEIJERS G. and KORTE C.L. Objective Performance Testing and Quality Assurance of Medical
Ultrasound Equipment. Ultrasound Med & Blot.. 2007. 33. pp. 460—471
(17] DUGGAN T. and SILK M. (l983):»Assessment of ultrasound scanners by acoustic signal injection*. Proceedings of
the Third Meeting ofthe WorldFederation for Ultrasoundin Medicine and Biology. R. Lerskiand P. Morley. Eds.. 1983.
(Pergamon Press. New York)
(18] REUTER R.. TRIER H.G. and LEPPER R.D. Der Echosimulator. em Funktionsgenerator zur Messung relevanter
Eigenschaflen von Ultraschaildiagnostik — Geraten. Blomed Technlk. 1980. 25. pp. 163— 166
(19] TRIER H.G.. REUTER R. and LEPPER R.D. Quality assurance by equipment performance testing . Merits of electric test
generators. Proc. 4* European Congress on Ultrasonics in Medicine. Dubrovnik. May 17—24. 1981. In: Recent
advances in ultrasound diagnosis. 3. A. Kurjak and A. Kratochwtl, Eds., pp. 91—94 (Excerpta Medica. Amsterdam.
Oxford. Princeton 1981)
(20] CARSON, P. Rapid Evaluation of Many Pulse Echo System Characteristics by use of a Tnggered Pulse Burst
Generator with Exponential Decay. J. Clin. Ultrasound. 1976. 4, pp. 259—276
(21] NEMA (2004). Digitalimaging and communications In medicine (DICOM) Part 1: Introduction and overview. National
Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn . VA. USA. p. 21
(22] VAN WIJK M.C. and THIJSSEN J.M. Performance Testing of Medical Ultrasound Equipment : fundamentals and
harmonic modes. Ultrasonics. 2002. 40. pp. 585—591
(23] LU 2.. ZAGZEBSKI J.. and LEE F. (1999). Ultrasound backscatter and attenuation In human liver with diffuse disease.
Ultrasound Med & Biol. 1999. 25, pp. 1047— 1054
(24] LU Z.. ZAGZEBSKI J.. O’BRIEN W. and STEINBERG H. Ultrasound attenuation and backscatter in the liver during
prednisone administration. Ultrasound Med & Biol. 1997. 25. pp. 1—8
(25] ALUM (1995). Methods tor Specifying Acoustic Properties of Tissue Mimicking Phantoms and Objects: Stage 1.
American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine 14750 Sweitzer Lane, Laurel. MD 20707
(26] WEAR K.. STILES T.. FRANK G.etal. Interlaboratory comparison of ultrasonic backscattercoefficient measurements
from 2 to 9 MHz. J. Ultrasound Med . 2005. 24. pp. 1235— 1250
21