Assessment of cervical spine CT by an image quality audit using qualitative and quantitative methods.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Hooryia Bajwa, Thenugaa Sritharan, Tanita Botha, Price Jackson, Kim McAnulty, Lincoln J Lim, Phillip V Tran, Shane Reeves, Leah Biffin, Harish Narayanan
{"title":"Assessment of cervical spine CT by an image quality audit using qualitative and quantitative methods.","authors":"Hooryia Bajwa, Thenugaa Sritharan, Tanita Botha, Price Jackson, Kim McAnulty, Lincoln J Lim, Phillip V Tran, Shane Reeves, Leah Biffin, Harish Narayanan","doi":"10.1111/1754-9485.13791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To study the feasibility and assess the correlation of qualitative and quantitative methods for an image quality (IQ) audit of a Cervical spine CT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five radiologists retrospectively performed a blinded visual grading analysis (VGA) on 20 studies (10 from Protocol 1 and 10 from Protocol 2), using the RANZCR CT IQ Self-Audit worksheet. A Visual Grading Analysis Score (VGAS) and Area under the curve using Visual Grading Characteristics (AUC<sub>VGC</sub>) were the figures of merit. Quantitative metrics for noise and contrast were correlated to the qualitative assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No statistically significant difference was observed in the IQ, VGAS<sub>Protocol 1</sub> = 0.65, 95% CI [0.54, 0.75] and VGAS<sub>Protocol 2</sub> = 0.73, 95% CI [0.67, 0.79] and AUC<sub>VGC</sub> = 0.548, 95% CI [0.40, 0.69]. Protocol 2 indicated a statistically significant average dose reduction of 35% in CTDI<sub>vol</sub> (P = 0.020) and a higher noise; however, the difference was statistically insignificant. There was a moderate correlation between the manual noise measurements in soft tissue and air (P = 0.035) and a strong correlation between the manual and automated noise measurements (P < 0.001). The contrast resolution-based quantitative parameter, EdgeGradientSoft, correlated to the qualitative scores (P = 0.031).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Validated VGA tools can be used for IQ audits; however, tailoring the image criteria and rating scale to the clinical practice is suggested. The use of contrast-based IQ metrics showed encouraging results, and further larger-scale studies are needed to explore their potential use in quality management.</p>","PeriodicalId":16218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.13791","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: To study the feasibility and assess the correlation of qualitative and quantitative methods for an image quality (IQ) audit of a Cervical spine CT.

Methods: Five radiologists retrospectively performed a blinded visual grading analysis (VGA) on 20 studies (10 from Protocol 1 and 10 from Protocol 2), using the RANZCR CT IQ Self-Audit worksheet. A Visual Grading Analysis Score (VGAS) and Area under the curve using Visual Grading Characteristics (AUCVGC) were the figures of merit. Quantitative metrics for noise and contrast were correlated to the qualitative assessment.

Results: No statistically significant difference was observed in the IQ, VGASProtocol 1 = 0.65, 95% CI [0.54, 0.75] and VGASProtocol 2 = 0.73, 95% CI [0.67, 0.79] and AUCVGC = 0.548, 95% CI [0.40, 0.69]. Protocol 2 indicated a statistically significant average dose reduction of 35% in CTDIvol (P = 0.020) and a higher noise; however, the difference was statistically insignificant. There was a moderate correlation between the manual noise measurements in soft tissue and air (P = 0.035) and a strong correlation between the manual and automated noise measurements (P < 0.001). The contrast resolution-based quantitative parameter, EdgeGradientSoft, correlated to the qualitative scores (P = 0.031).

Conclusion: Validated VGA tools can be used for IQ audits; however, tailoring the image criteria and rating scale to the clinical practice is suggested. The use of contrast-based IQ metrics showed encouraging results, and further larger-scale studies are needed to explore their potential use in quality management.

使用定性和定量方法通过图像质量审核评估颈椎 CT。
简介:研究颈椎 CT 图像质量(IQ)审核的定性和定量方法的可行性并评估其相关性:研究颈椎 CT 图像质量 (IQ) 审计定性和定量方法的可行性并评估其相关性:方法: 五位放射科医生使用 RANZCR CT IQ 自我审核工作表对 20 项研究(10 项来自协议 1,10 项来自协议 2)进行了盲法视觉分级分析 (VGA)。视觉分级分析得分(VGAS)和使用视觉分级特征的曲线下面积(AUCVGC)是评价指标。噪声和对比度的定量指标与定性评估相关联:在智商方面没有观察到明显的统计学差异:VGAS 方案 1 = 0.65,95% CI [0.54, 0.75];VGAS 方案 2 = 0.73,95% CI [0.67, 0.79];AUCVGC = 0.548,95% CI [0.40, 0.69]。方案 2 表明 CTDIvol 的平均剂量减少了 35%(P = 0.020),噪声较高;但差异在统计学上并不显著。软组织和空气中的手动噪声测量值之间存在中等程度的相关性(P = 0.035),手动和自动噪声测量值之间存在较强的相关性(P 结论:VGA 工具可用于测量软组织和空气中的噪声:经过验证的 VGA 工具可用于 IQ 审核,但建议根据临床实践调整图像标准和评级表。基于对比度的 IQ 指标的使用结果令人鼓舞,需要进一步开展更大规模的研究,探索其在质量管理中的潜在用途。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
133
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology (formerly Australasian Radiology) is the official journal of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, publishing articles of scientific excellence in radiology and radiation oncology. Manuscripts are judged on the basis of their contribution of original data and ideas or interpretation. All articles are peer reviewed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信