Literature DB >> 31481182

Radiographers' perspectives' on Visual Grading Analysis as a scientific method to evaluate image quality.

H Precht1, J Hansson2, C Outzen3, P Hogg4, A Tingberg5.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Radiographers routinely undertake many initiatives to balance image quality with radiation dose (optimisation). For optimisation studies to be successful image quality needs to be carefully evaluated. Purpose was to 1) discuss the strengths and limitations of a Visual Grading Analysis (VGA) method for image quality evaluation and 2) to outline the method from a radiographer's perspective.
METHODS: A possible method for investigating and discussing the relationship between radiographic image quality parameters and the interpretation and perception of X-ray images is the VGA method. VGA has a number of advantages such as being low cost and a detailed image quality assessment, although it is limited to ensure the images convey the relevant clinical information and relate the task based radiography.
RESULTS: Comparing the experience of using VGA and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) it is obviously that less papers are published on VGA (Pubmed n=1.384) compared to ROC (Pubmed n=122.686). Hereby the scientific experience of the VGA method is limited compared to the use of ROC. VGA is, however, a much newer method and it is slowly gaining more and more attention.
CONCLUSION: The success of VGA requires a number of steps to be completed, such as defining the VGA criteria, choosing the VGA method (absolute or relative), including observers, finding the best image display platforms, training observers and selecting the best statistical method for the study purpose should be thoroughly considered. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: Detailed evaluation of image quality for optimisation studies related to technical definition of image quality.
Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords:  Image quality assessment method; VGA; Visual Grading Analysis; Visual image quality analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31481182     DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2019.06.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiography (Lond)        ISSN: 1078-8174


  5 in total

1.  COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL HAND EXAMINATION ON SIX OPTIMISED DR SYSTEMS.

Authors:  Helle Precht; Claus Bjørn Outzen; Martin Weber Kusk; Malene Bisgaard; Dag Waaler
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 0.972

2.  Assessment of Image Quality in Digital Radiographs Submitted for Hip Dysplasia Screening.

Authors:  Lilah Moorman; Helle Precht; Janni Jensen; Eiliv Svalastoga; Dorte H Nielsen; Helle F Proschowsky; Fintan J McEvoy
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2019-12-03

3.  Collimation and Exposure Parameter Influence Image Quality and Potential Radiation Dose to the Eye Lens of Personnel in Computed Radiography of the Canine Pelvis.

Authors:  Malene Bisgaard; Fintan J McEvoy; Dorte Hald Nielsen; Clara Allberg; Anna V Müller; Signe Timm; Signe N Meyer; Line Marie Johansen; Stine Pedersen; Helle Precht
Journal:  Front Vet Sci       Date:  2021-12-14

4.  Visual Evaluation of Image Quality of a Low Dose 2D/3D Slot Scanner Imaging System Compared to Two Conventional Digital Radiography X-ray Imaging Systems.

Authors:  Ahmed Jibril Abdi; Bo Mussmann; Alistair Mackenzie; Oke Gerke; Gitte Maria Jørgensen; Thor Eriksen Bechsgaard; Janni Jensen; Lone Brunshøj Olsen; Poul Erik Andersen
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-10-19

5.  Magnetic resonance imaging sequence evaluation of an MR Linac system; early clinical experience.

Authors:  C L Eccles; G Adair Smith; L Bower; S Hafeez; T Herbert; A Hunt; H A McNair; Mercy Ofuya; Uwe Oelfke; Simeon Nill; R A Huddart
Journal:  Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol       Date:  2019-12-16
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.