Development and validation of a psychometric scale for assessing PA chest image quality: A pilot study

Evaluating the Relationship of Body Mass Index and Waist Circumference on the Image Quality of Abdominal Computed Radiography

“…The VGA and SNR values in this study have a strong positive correlation of R 2 = 0.94 (r = 0.97). This finding is in accordance with that of Mraity et al (2014), who found that the VGA and SNR have a strong positive correlation of R 2 = 0.98 (r = 0.99). The current result also agrees well with that of Ullman et al (2004), who demonstrated that the relationship between VGA and SNR for a simulation study of pelvis image in the AP projection has established a correlation coefficient of R 2 = 0.94 (r = 0.96).…”

“…Two image quality parameter methods were used, namely, quantitatively signal to signal to noise (SNR) and qualitatively visual grading analysis (VGA). The literature review emphasised that many studies related to the radiographic image quality have used quantitative measurements, such as SNR with a combination of qualitative assessment of VGA (Neitzel et al 1994;Tingberg et al 2004;Mraity et al 2014). VGA relies on subjective radiographic image assessors, is used to evaluate normal anatomical radiographic images in determining exposure factors.…”

10 kVp rule – An anthropomorphic pelvis phantom imaging study using a CR system: Impact on image quality and effective dose using AEC and manual mode

“…This image shows the ROI for the reference image. 69,2 (8,9) 63,8 (11,3) 60,5 (10,3) 56,6 (13,4) 68,8 (8,9) 64,8 (2,3) 58 (5,8) 59,2 (10,3) 54,8 (6,4) 47,6 (8,9) R= reference image…”

“…Our method was based upon previous studies in chest radiography (2,7). Perceptual image quality was evaluated using the two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) method (8), with image quality criteria being derived from a psychometric scale (9). Effective dose was estimated using a Monte Carlo mathematical simulation.…”

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

“…8 Poor reliability of visual grading methods may arise from a lack of universally accepted standards in terminology/criteria and from the lack of validated scales within the literature. 9,10 Image quality assessments are, therefore, almost always subjective; this in turn leads to interobserver and intraobserver variability, which is a common problem in medical imaging. 11 The only published criteria for visual image quality assessment were provided by the Commission of European communities (CEC) in 1996.…”