Yeonhee Kim, Samsun Lee, Gyudong Jo, Ahyoung Kwon, Juhee Kang, Joeun Kim, Kyunghoe Huh, Wonjin Yi, Minsuk Heo, Soonchul Choi
{"title":"Comparative analysis of clinical image evaluation charts for panoramic radiography.","authors":"Yeonhee Kim, Samsun Lee, Gyudong Jo, Ahyoung Kwon, Juhee Kang, Joeun Kim, Kyunghoe Huh, Wonjin Yi, Minsuk Heo, Soonchul Choi","doi":"10.1007/s11282-024-00765-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare and analyze professional (P chart) and simple (S chart) clinical image evaluation charts for evaluating panoramic radiograph image quality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten evaluators assessed 285 clinical panoramic radiograph images. The evaluators were divided into oral and maxillofacial radiologists (OMFR, n = 5) and general dentist (dentists not specializing in oral and maxillofacial radiology, G, n = 5) groups. For image evaluation, P and S charts provided by the Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology were used. Scores of items for each evaluation chart were used to compare the reliability, correlation, evaluation scores, evaluation time, and preference, and statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The S chart showed similar levels of evaluation scores at shorter evaluation time, as compared to the P chart. In the results for each evaluation chart, all analyzed correlations were statistically significant. Total score, image density/contrast/sharpness, and overall image quality items showed a very high positive correlation in the P chart. While the overall range of correlation coefficients was relatively lower in the S chart than the P chart, the same items showed high correlation coefficients. In the preference evaluation, both the professional and generalist groups preferred the S chart.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A comparative analysis with the P chart, revisions, and upgrades are needed for the S chart items that showed low correlations in this study, such as artifacts, coverage area, and patient movement.</p>","PeriodicalId":56103,"journal":{"name":"Oral Radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11379777/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-024-00765-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To compare and analyze professional (P chart) and simple (S chart) clinical image evaluation charts for evaluating panoramic radiograph image quality.
Methods: Ten evaluators assessed 285 clinical panoramic radiograph images. The evaluators were divided into oral and maxillofacial radiologists (OMFR, n = 5) and general dentist (dentists not specializing in oral and maxillofacial radiology, G, n = 5) groups. For image evaluation, P and S charts provided by the Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology were used. Scores of items for each evaluation chart were used to compare the reliability, correlation, evaluation scores, evaluation time, and preference, and statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics.
Results: The S chart showed similar levels of evaluation scores at shorter evaluation time, as compared to the P chart. In the results for each evaluation chart, all analyzed correlations were statistically significant. Total score, image density/contrast/sharpness, and overall image quality items showed a very high positive correlation in the P chart. While the overall range of correlation coefficients was relatively lower in the S chart than the P chart, the same items showed high correlation coefficients. In the preference evaluation, both the professional and generalist groups preferred the S chart.
Conclusions: A comparative analysis with the P chart, revisions, and upgrades are needed for the S chart items that showed low correlations in this study, such as artifacts, coverage area, and patient movement.
目的比较并分析用于评估全景X光图像质量的专业(P图)和简单(S图)临床图像评估图:十位评估员评估了 285 张临床全景放射影像。评估者分为口腔颌面放射科医师组(OMFR,n = 5)和普通牙医组(非口腔颌面放射科专业牙医,G,n = 5)。图像评估采用韩国口腔颌面放射学会提供的 P 和 S 图表。使用 IBM SPSS 统计软件对每个评价图表的项目得分进行可靠性、相关性、评价得分、评价时间和偏好性比较,并进行统计分析:结果:与 P 型评价表相比,S 型评价表在较短的评价时间内显示出相似的评价得分水平。在每个评价图表的结果中,所有分析的相关性都具有统计学意义。在 P 图表中,总分、图像密度/对比度/清晰度和整体图像质量项目显示出非常高的正相关性。虽然 S 图表的总体相关系数范围相对低于 P 图表,但同样的项目却显示出很高的相关系数。在偏好评估中,专业组和通才组都更喜欢 S 图表:结论:对于本研究中相关性较低的 S 型图表项目,如伪影、覆盖区域和患者移动,需要与 P 型图表、修订版和升级版进行比较分析。
期刊介绍:
As the official English-language journal of the Japanese Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology and the Asian Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Oral Radiology is intended to be a forum for international collaboration in head and neck diagnostic imaging and all related fields. Oral Radiology features cutting-edge research papers, review articles, case reports, and technical notes from both the clinical and experimental fields. As membership in the Society is not a prerequisite, contributions are welcome from researchers and clinicians worldwide.