Literature DB >> 19482454

A review of methods of clinical image quality evaluation in mammography.

Yanpeng Li1, Ann Poulos, Donald McLean, Mary Rickard.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Consistency in evaluation of mammography images in research and clinical practice is dependent on a standardised clinical image quality evaluation system. Currently two such systems are available-one developed by the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the other by the European Commission (EU guidelines). The purpose of this study was to review mammography clinical evaluation methods in research studies and their adherence to these systems.
METHOD: A total of 23 research articles were reviewed from the period 2000-2006, 11 of these studies used digital images. The focus of the review was the criteria and rating scales used.
RESULTS: Only 5 studies used either the ACR (3) or EU guidelines (2). The remainder included aspects of these systems together with a range of other criteria and rating scales. Variation was found in the categories of criteria used, number of criteria, the descriptors of the criteria and the instructions used to evaluate the criteria. Instructions were frequently not specific and open to individual interpretation. Although breast density is an important criterion of image quality and contributes to perception of breast lesions, inclusion of this criterion was not universal, and even when used the area of breast density to be evaluated was not identified, thus enhancing inter-observer variability. Scales that were absolute or relative were used for evaluation, all of which incorporated inconsistent numbers of steps.
CONCLUSION: Low adherence to ACR and EU Guidelines has resulted in considerable variation in the evaluation methods used in research studies. The implications of this variability are considerable both for evaluation of image quality in research outcomes and clinical practice. Crown Copyright (c) 2009. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19482454     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.04.069

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Radiol        ISSN: 0720-048X            Impact factor:   3.528


  12 in total

1.  Development and validation of a visual grading scale for assessing image quality of AP pelvis radiographic images.

Authors:  Hussien A A B Mraity; Andrew England; Simon Cassidy; Peter Eachus; Alejandro Dominguez; Peter Hogg
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  A review of mammographic positioning image quality criteria for the craniocaudal projection.

Authors:  Rhonda-Joy I Sweeney; Sarah J Lewis; Peter Hogg; Mark F McEntee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  High-resolution, low-dose phase contrast X-ray tomography for 3D diagnosis of human breast cancers.

Authors:  Yunzhe Zhao; Emmanuel Brun; Paola Coan; Zhifeng Huang; Aniko Sztrókay; Paul Claude Diemoz; Susanne Liebhardt; Alberto Mittone; Sergei Gasilov; Jianwei Miao; Alberto Bravin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  A Comparison of the effectiveness of Mammographic Film-Screen and Standard Film-Screen in the Detection of Small Bone Fractures.

Authors:  Karim Ghazikhanlou Sani; Mahmoodreza Jafari; Nima Rostampoor
Journal:  Iran J Med Sci       Date:  2011-12

5.  A new full-field digital mammography system with and without the use of an advanced post-processing algorithm: comparison of image quality and diagnostic performance.

Authors:  Hye Shin Ahn; Sun Mi Kim; Mijung Jang; Bo La Yun; Bohyoung Kim; Eun Sook Ko; Boo-Kyung Han; Jung Min Chang; Ann Yi; Nariya Cho; Woo Kyung Moon; Hye Young Choi
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 3.500

6.  Is quality and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in high impact radiology journals associated with citation rates?

Authors:  Christian B van der Pol; Matthew D F McInnes; William Petrcich; Adam S Tunis; Ramez Hanna
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-16       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Clinical image evaluation of film mammograms in Korea: comparison with the ACR standard.

Authors:  Yeon Joo Gwak; Hye Jung Kim; Jin Young Kwak; Eun Ju Son; Kyung Hee Ko; Jin Hwa Lee; Hyo Soon Lim; You Jin Lee; Ji Won Park; Kyung Min Shin; Yun-Jin Jang
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 3.500

8.  Quality assurance and quality control in mammography: a review of available guidance worldwide.

Authors:  Cláudia Reis; Ana Pascoal; Taxiarchis Sakellaris; Manthos Koutalonis
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2013-08-04

9.  Overview of the radiographers' practice in 65 healthcare centers using digital mammography systems in Portugal.

Authors:  Cláudia Sá Dos Reis; Ana Pascoal; Lucian Radu; Mário Fartaria de Oliveira; João Alves
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2017-03-16

10.  European radiographers' challenges from mammography education and clinical practice - an integrative review.

Authors:  Eija Metsälä; Nicole Richli Meystre; José Pires Jorge; Anja Henner; Tiina Kukkes; Cláudia Sá Dos Reis
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2017-03-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.