Walsh C, Dowling A, Meade A, Malone J
Department of Medical Physics and Bio-Engineering, St James's Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland.
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;117(1-3):34-7. doi: 10.1093/rpd/nci708. Epub 2006 Feb 3.
There are numerous methods for assessing image quality in diagnostic X ray. In our study we assessed how imaging quality assurance methods perform in practice. Physics assessments were based on IPEM protocols using Leeds test objects. Clinical assessment was based on a questionnaire. A total of 15 systems in three European locations were assessed, covering a range of image intensifier-TV digital fluoroscopy units. Analysis of 274 clinical questionnaires showed that clinical and physics assessments did not place systems in the same order, based on a given image quality parameter. In almost all the comparisons, low level correlation was measured for statistical comparison of rank order (rs < 0.3). However, broad agreement was observed between physics and clinical assessments for image quality associated with contrast and noise. This study emphasises the importance of maintaining links with clinical assessment, when developing quality assurance metrics, and measuring the mutual performance of clinical and physical assessments of image quality.
在诊断X射线中，有许多评估图像质量的方法。在我们的研究中，我们评估了成像质量保证方法在实际中的表现。物理评估基于使用利兹测试物体的IPEM协议。临床评估基于一份调查问卷。对欧洲三个地点的总共15个系统进行了评估，涵盖了一系列图像增强器 - 电视数字荧光透视设备。对274份临床调查问卷的分析表明，基于给定的图像质量参数，临床评估和物理评估并没有将系统按相同顺序排列。在几乎所有的比较中，秩次统计比较的相关性较低（rs < 0.3）。然而，在与对比度和噪声相关的图像质量方面，物理评估和临床评估之间观察到广泛的一致性。本研究强调了在制定质量保证指标时保持与临床评估联系的重要性，以及衡量图像质量临床评估和物理评估的相互表现。
