ArticleInsights into imaging2019
Development and validation of image quality scoring criteria (IQSC) for pediatric CT: a preliminary study.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the diagnostic performance of 3D radiographs in emergency department extremity imaging: an early comparative study.Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- An in-house fabricated patient-specific pediatric head CT phantom for trauma-oriented emergency imaging: two-scanner validation and expert reader assessment.Emergency radiology · 2026Article
- A multi-focus oral panoramic x-ray image dataset based on pixel-level annotations.Scientific data · 2026Article
- Marine Mobile Stroke Unit: A Pilot Study on the Feasibility and Quality of Brain Imaging.Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Image quality in ultra-low-dose chest CT versus chest x-rays guiding paediatric cystic fibrosis care.European radiology · 2026Article
- Improving fat saturation robustness in outer extremity MRI with a local shim coil insert.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- Thoracic CT Angiographies in Children Using Automated Power Injection with Bolus Tracking Versus Manual Contrast Injection: Analysis of Contrast Enhancement, Image Quality and Radiation Exposure.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A multi-modal dental dataset for semi-supervised deep learning image segmentation.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Is AI currently capable of identifying wild oysters? A comparison of human annotators against the AI model, ODYSSEE.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2025Article
- Development of Acceptable Quality Dose (AQD) and image quality-related diagnostic reference levels for common computed tomography investigations in a tertiary care public sector hospital of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.Japanese journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Assessment of image quality and establishment of local acceptable quality dose for computed tomography based on patient effective diameter.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024Article
- Synthetic interpolated DSA for radiation exposure reduction via gamma variate contrast flow modeling: a retrospective cohort study.European radiology experimental · 2024Article
- Next-generation digital chest tomosynthesis.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2024Article
- The Dose Optimization and Evaluation of Image Quality in the Adult Brain Protocols of Multi-Slice Computed Tomography: A Phantom Study.Journal of imaging · 2023Article
- Children's dental panoramic radiographs dataset for caries segmentation and dental disease detection.Scientific data · 2023Article
- Paediatric CT made easy.Pediatric radiology · 2023Review
- Paediatric diagnostic reference levels for common radiological examinations using the European guidelines.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Radiation dose levels of thoracic-lumbar spine CT in pediatric trauma patients and assessment of scan parameters for dose optimization.Pediatric radiology · 2022Article
- Five-star rating system for acceptable quality and dose in CT.European radiology · 2021Article
- Contemporary issues in radiation protection in medical imaging: introductory editorial.The British journal of radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and assess the value and limitations of an image quality scoring criteria (IQSC) for pediatric CT exams.
methodsIQSC 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.
resultsAll 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.
conclusionsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.