Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38165429›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2024

How subjective CT image quality assessment becomes surprisingly reliable: pairwise comparisons instead of Likert scale.

Eva J I Hoeijmakers, Bibi Martens, Babs M F Hendriks, Casper Mihl, Razvan L Miclea, Walter H Backes, Joachim E Wildberger, Frank M Zijta, Hester A Gietema, Patricia J Nelemans and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Improved assessment of the cochlear implant and temporal bone structures with ultra-high resolution photon-counting detector CT compared to conventional CT systems.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Free-breathing phase-sensitive inversion recovery TMagnetic resonance in medicine · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Eva J I HoeijmakersDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P. Debyelaan 25, Maastricht, 6229 HX, The Netherlands. evie.hoeijmakers@mumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-7026-3112
Bibi MartensDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P. Debyelaan 25, Maastricht, 6229 HX, The Netherlands.
Babs M F HendriksDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P. Debyelaan 25, Maastricht, 6229 HX, The Netherlands.
Casper MihlDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P. Debyelaan 25, Maastricht, 6229 HX, The Netherlands.
Razvan L MicleaDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P. Debyelaan 25, Maastricht, 6229 HX, The Netherlands.
Walter H BackesDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P. Debyelaan 25, Maastricht, 6229 HX, The Netherlands.
Joachim E WildbergerDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P. Debyelaan 25, Maastricht, 6229 HX, The Netherlands.
Frank M ZijtaDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P. Debyelaan 25, Maastricht, 6229 HX, The Netherlands.
Hester A GietemaDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P. Debyelaan 25, Maastricht, 6229 HX, The Netherlands.
Patricia J NelemansDepartment of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 50, Maastricht, 6229 ER, The Netherlands.
Cécile R L P N JeukensDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P. Debyelaan 25, Maastricht, 6229 HX, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study is to improve the reliability of subjective IQ assessment using a pairwise comparison (PC) method instead of a Likert scale method in abdominal CT scans.

methodsAbdominal CT scans (single-center) were retrospectively selected between September 2019 and February 2020 in a prior study. Sample variance in IQ was obtained by adding artificial noise using dedicated reconstruction software, including reconstructions with filtered backprojection and varying iterative reconstruction strengths. Two datasets (each n = 50) were composed with either higher or lower IQ variation with the 25 original scans being part of both datasets. Using in-house developed software, six observers (five radiologists, one resident) rated both datasets via both the PC method (forcing observers to choose preferred scans out of pairs of scans resulting in a ranking) and a 5-point Likert scale. The PC method was optimized using a sorting algorithm to minimize necessary comparisons. The inter- and intraobserver agreements were assessed for both methods with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

resultsTwenty-five patients (mean age 61 years ± 15.5; 56% men) were evaluated. The ICC for interobserver agreement for the high-variation dataset increased from 0.665 (95%CI 0.396-0.814) to 0.785 (95%CI 0.676-0.867) when the PC method was used instead of a Likert scale. For the low-variation dataset, the ICC increased from 0.276 (95%CI 0.034-0.500) to 0.562 (95%CI 0.337-0.729). Intraobserver agreement increased for four out of six observers.

conclusionThe PC method is more reliable for subjective IQ assessment indicated by improved inter- and intraobserver agreement. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This study shows that the pairwise comparison method is a more reliable method for subjective image quality assessment. Improved reliability is of key importance for optimization studies, validation of automatic image quality assessment algorithms, and training of AI algorithms. KEY POINTS: • Subjective assessment of diagnostic image quality via Likert scale has limited reliability. • A pairwise comparison method improves the inter- and intraobserver agreement. • The pairwise comparison method is more reliable for CT optimization studies.

Indexed as

Tomography, X-Ray ComputedAlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRadiography, AbdominalReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSoftwareComputed tomography (X-ray)Interobserver variabilityIntraobserver variability

Identifiers

PMID38165429
PMCPMC11213789

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.