Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29858638›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2018

Task-based quantification of image quality using a model observer in abdominal CT: a multicentre study.

Damien Racine, Nick Ryckx, Alexandre Ba, Fabio Becce, Anais Viry, Francis R Verdun, Sabine Schmidt

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Comparative observer effects in 2D and 3D localization tasks.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Damien RacineInstitute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital, Rue du Grand-Pré 1, 1007, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Nick RyckxInstitute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital, Rue du Grand-Pré 1, 1007, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Alexandre BaInstitute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital, Rue du Grand-Pré 1, 1007, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Fabio BecceDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Anais ViryInstitute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital, Rue du Grand-Pré 1, 1007, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Francis R VerdunInstitute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital, Rue du Grand-Pré 1, 1007, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Sabine SchmidtDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. sabine.schmidt@chuv.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2631-3032
Institute of Radiation PhysicsUniversity of Lausanne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe investigated the variability in diagnostic information inherent in computed tomography (CT) images acquired at 68 different CT units, with the selected acquisition protocols aiming to answer the same clinical question.

methodsAn anthropomorphic abdominal phantom with two optional rings was scanned on 68 CT systems from 62 centres using the local clinical acquisition parameters of the portal venous phase for the detection of focal liver lesions. Low-contrast detectability (LCD) was assessed objectively with channelised Hotelling observer (CHO) using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) paradigm. For each lesion size, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated and considered as a figure of merit. The volume computed tomography dose index (CTDI

resultsThe median CTDI

conclusionsOur study used a model observer to highlight the difference in image quality levels when dealing with the same clinical question. This difference was important and increased with growing phantom size, which generated large variations in patient exposure. In the end, a standardisation initiative may be launched to ensure comparable diagnostic information for well-defined clinical questions. The image quality requirements, related to the clinical question to be answered, should be the starting point of patient dose optimisation. KEY POINTS: • Model observers enable to assess image quality objectively based on clinical tasks. • Objective image quality assessment should always include several patient sizes. • Clinical diagnostic image quality should be the starting point for patient dose optimisation. • Dose optimisation by applying DRLs only is insufficient for ensuring clinical requirements.

Indexed as

Phantoms, ImagingAbdomenHumansRadiation DosageRadiation ExposureROC CurveTomography, X-Ray ComputedAbdominal computed tomographyImage qualityModel observerStandardisationTask-based assessment

Identifiers

PMID29858638
PMCPMC6223860
OpenAlexW2807537263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.