Display options
Cite
Padole AM, Sagar P, Westra SJ, et al. Development and validation of image quality scoring criteria (IQSC) for pediatric CT: a preliminary study. Insights Imaging. 2019;10(1):95doi: 10.1186/s13244-019-0769-8.
Padole, A. M., Sagar, P., Westra, S. J., Lim, R., Nimkin, K., Kalra, M. K., Gee, M. S., & Rehani, M. M. (2019). Development and validation of image quality scoring criteria (IQSC) for pediatric CT: a preliminary study. Insights into imaging, 10(1), 95. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0769-8
Padole, Atul M, et al. "Development and validation of image quality scoring criteria (IQSC) for pediatric CT: a preliminary study." Insights into imaging vol. 10,1 (2019): 95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0769-8
Padole AM, Sagar P, Westra SJ, Lim R, Nimkin K, Kalra MK, Gee MS, Rehani MM. Development and validation of image quality scoring criteria (IQSC) for pediatric CT: a preliminary study. Insights Imaging. 2019 Sep 23;10(1):95. doi: 10.1186/s13244-019-0769-8. PMID: 31549234; PMCID: PMC6757090.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Insights Imaging. 2019 Sep 23;10(1):95. doi: 10.1186/s13244-019-0769-8.

Development and validation of image quality scoring criteria (IQSC) for pediatric CT: a preliminary study.

Insights into imaging

Atul M Padole, Pallavi Sagar, Sjirk J Westra, Ruth Lim, Katherine Nimkin, Mannudeep K Kalra, Michael S Gee, Madan M Rehani

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Cambridge Street, Suite 244, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
  2. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Cambridge Street, Suite 244, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. [email protected].

PMID: 31549234 PMCID: PMC6757090 DOI: 10.1186/s13244-019-0769-8

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop and assess the value and limitations of an image quality scoring criteria (IQSC) for pediatric CT exams.

METHODS: IQSC was developed for subjective assessment of image quality using the scoring scale from 0 to 4, with 0 indicating desired anatomy or features not seen, 3 for adequate image quality, and 4 depicting higher than needed image quality. Pediatric CT examinations from 30 separate patients were selected, five each for routine chest, routine abdomen, kidney stone, appendicitis, craniosynostosis, and ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt. Five board-certified pediatric radiologists independently performed image quality evaluation using the proposed IQSC. The kappa statistics were used to assess the interobserver variability.

RESULTS: All five radiologists gave a score of 3 to two-third (67%) of all CT exams, followed by a score of 4 for 29% of CT exams, and 2 for 4% exams. The median image quality scores for all exams were 3 and the interobserver agreement among five readers (acceptable image quality [scores 3 or 4] vs sub-optimal image quality ([scores 1 and 2]) was moderate to very good (kappa 0.4-1). For all five radiologists, the lesion detection was adequate for all CT exams.

CONCLUSIONS: The image quality scoring criteria covering routine and some clinical indication-based imaging scenarios for pediatric CT examinations has potential to offer a simple and practical tool for assessing image quality with a reasonable degree of interobserver agreement. A more extensive and multi-centric study is recommended to establish wider usefulness of these criteria.

Keywords: Clinical indications; Image quality scoring criteria; Pediatric CT; Radiation dose optimization; Radiation protection

References

  1. Pediatr Radiol. 2017 May;47(6):701-709 - PubMed
  2. Neurosurgery. 2015 Aug;77(2):228-32; discussion 232 - PubMed
  3. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014 Mar;11(3):292-9 - PubMed
  4. Radiology. 2009 Jul;252(1):200-8 - PubMed
  5. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014 Mar;11(3):267-70 - PubMed
  6. Med Phys. 2014 Jul;41(7):071904 - PubMed
  7. Eur J Radiol. 2013 Jul;82(7):1059-66 - PubMed
  8. Radiographics. 2015 Oct;35(6):1706-21 - PubMed
  9. Magn Reson Imaging. 2016 Jul;34(6):820-831 - PubMed
  10. Pediatr Radiol. 2013 Mar;43(5):558-67 - PubMed
  11. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Jun;202(6):1309-15 - PubMed
  12. Eur Radiol. 2016 Mar;26(3):892-9 - PubMed
  13. Br J Radiol. 2015 Jan;88(1045):20140344 - PubMed
  14. Pediatr Radiol. 2014 Oct;44 Suppl 3:511-4 - PubMed
  15. Radiology. 2014 Feb;270(2):526-34 - PubMed
  16. Eur Radiol. 2013 Mar;23(3):623-31 - PubMed
  17. Ann ICRP. 2013 Apr;42(2):1-63 - PubMed
  18. Pediatr Radiol. 2014 Oct;44 Suppl 3:475-8 - PubMed
  19. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2015 Jul;165(1-4):67-9 - PubMed
  20. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2015 Jul;165(1-4):70-80 - PubMed
  21. Ann ICRP. 2015 Jun;44(1 Suppl):229-35 - PubMed
  22. Eur J Radiol. 2015 Aug;84(8):1574-1578 - PubMed
  23. Med Phys. 2017 Sep;44(9):e153-e163 - PubMed
  24. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(1):1-79, iii - PubMed
  25. Ann ICRP. 2012 Oct-Dec;41(3-4):154-60 - PubMed
  26. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 May;198(5):992-5 - PubMed

Publication Types