The difference in image quality assessment between radiographers and radiologists and its relationship with diagnostic accuracy

IF 2.5 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
R. Decoster, M.-L. Ryan, R. Toomey
{"title":"The difference in image quality assessment between radiographers and radiologists and its relationship with diagnostic accuracy","authors":"R. Decoster,&nbsp;M.-L. Ryan,&nbsp;R. Toomey","doi":"10.1016/j.radi.2024.10.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Radiographers must ensure that the radiographs they produce are of sufficient quality before reporting by radiologists. However, does radiographers’ perception of image quality relates to the diagnostic accuracy of radiologists?</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>38 unique postero-anterior (PA) chest radiographs containing either no pathology, well defined or diffuse lesions were presented to four radiologists and 24 radiographers. Image quality was rated using RadLex quality descriptors. Additionally, radiologists rated their confidence of a radiograph being were normal or abnormal on a 5-point scale. Radiographers rated visibility of anatomical structures, satisfaction with positioning, collimation and adequacy of detector dose. Modelling correlation explored relationships between radiologists' detection of pathology and radiographers’ ratings.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Radiographers rated image quality of 56 % of radiographs as non-diagnostic or limited, compared to 30.7 % by radiologists. Modelling revealed that chances of a radiograph being classified in lower quality categories by radiographers increased inversely proportionally with perceived dose, and suddenly increased when positioning was considered unacceptable. No correlation (p = 0.10) was found between quality descriptors by radiographers and diagnostic accuracy of radiologists.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Findings suggest that perceived “better” image quality, as defined by radiographers, may not necessarily correlate with diagnostic accuracy. This implies that radiographs repeated in clinical practice might not enhance diagnostic value.</div></div><div><h3>Implications for practice</h3><div>These findings raise the question which elements in the radiography or actual content (such as representation of anatomical structures) are key elements used to diagnose, which may have implications for image quality studies. Exploring the evolution of decision-making in radiographers trained to report could provide further valuable insights.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47416,"journal":{"name":"Radiography","volume":"31 1","pages":"Pages 89-96"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078817424003195","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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

Radiographers must ensure that the radiographs they produce are of sufficient quality before reporting by radiologists. However, does radiographers’ perception of image quality relates to the diagnostic accuracy of radiologists?

Methods

38 unique postero-anterior (PA) chest radiographs containing either no pathology, well defined or diffuse lesions were presented to four radiologists and 24 radiographers. Image quality was rated using RadLex quality descriptors. Additionally, radiologists rated their confidence of a radiograph being were normal or abnormal on a 5-point scale. Radiographers rated visibility of anatomical structures, satisfaction with positioning, collimation and adequacy of detector dose. Modelling correlation explored relationships between radiologists' detection of pathology and radiographers’ ratings.

Results

Radiographers rated image quality of 56 % of radiographs as non-diagnostic or limited, compared to 30.7 % by radiologists. Modelling revealed that chances of a radiograph being classified in lower quality categories by radiographers increased inversely proportionally with perceived dose, and suddenly increased when positioning was considered unacceptable. No correlation (p = 0.10) was found between quality descriptors by radiographers and diagnostic accuracy of radiologists.

Conclusion

Findings suggest that perceived “better” image quality, as defined by radiographers, may not necessarily correlate with diagnostic accuracy. This implies that radiographs repeated in clinical practice might not enhance diagnostic value.

Implications for practice

These findings raise the question which elements in the radiography or actual content (such as representation of anatomical structures) are key elements used to diagnose, which may have implications for image quality studies. Exploring the evolution of decision-making in radiographers trained to report could provide further valuable insights.
放射技师和放射医师在图像质量评估方面的差异及其与诊断准确性的关系。
导言:放射技师在向放射科医生报告之前,必须确保他们制作的射线照片具有足够的质量。然而,放射技师对图像质量的感知是否与放射医师的诊断准确性有关?方法:4 名放射医师和 24 名放射技师共拍摄了 38 张独特的后前方 (PA) 胸片,这些胸片要么没有病变,要么病变清晰,要么病变弥漫。使用 RadLex 质量描述符对图像质量进行评分。此外,放射科医生还以 5 分制评定他们对 X 光片正常或异常的信心。放射技师对解剖结构的可见度、定位满意度、准直度和探测器剂量的充足性进行评分。建模相关性探讨了放射医师发现病变与放射技师评分之间的关系:结果:放射技师将 56% 的射线照片的图像质量评为无诊断意义或有限,而放射科医生则将 30.7% 的射线照片的图像质量评为有诊断意义或有限。建模结果显示,放射技师将射线照片归入较低质量类别的几率与感知剂量成反比增加,当定位被认为不可接受时,几率会突然增加。放射技师的质量描述与放射医师的诊断准确性之间没有相关性(p = 0.10):研究结果表明,由放射技师定义的 "较好 "图像质量不一定与诊断准确性相关。这意味着临床实践中重复拍摄的放射照片可能不会提高诊断价值:这些发现提出了一个问题,即放射影像中的哪些要素或实际内容(如解剖结构的表现)是用于诊断的关键要素,这可能会对影像质量研究产生影响。探索接受过报告培训的放射技师的决策演变过程,可以提供更多有价值的见解。
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
Radiography
Radiography RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
34.60%
发文量
169
审稿时长
63 days
期刊介绍: Radiography is an International, English language, peer-reviewed journal of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy. Radiography is the official professional journal of the College of Radiographers and is published quarterly. Radiography aims to publish the highest quality material, both clinical and scientific, on all aspects of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy and oncology.
×
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