Cargando…
Reproducibility of a quantitative system for assessing the quality of diagnostic ultrasound
OBJECTIVE: To present a quantitative system for assessing the quality of ultrasound examinations-SQUALUS-and to determine its reproducibility, taking into consideration the images on file, as well as the consistency between the images obtained and the final report. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The system...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por
Imagem
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6034735/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29991839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0100-3984.2017.0021 |
_version_ | 1783337925561286656 |
---|---|
author | Iared, Wagner Puchnick, Andrea Bancovsky, Eduardo Bettini, Paulo Roberto Vedolin, Leonardo Modesti Chammas, Maria Cristina |
author_facet | Iared, Wagner Puchnick, Andrea Bancovsky, Eduardo Bettini, Paulo Roberto Vedolin, Leonardo Modesti Chammas, Maria Cristina |
author_sort | Iared, Wagner |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To present a quantitative system for assessing the quality of ultrasound examinations-SQUALUS-and to determine its reproducibility, taking into consideration the images on file, as well as the consistency between the images obtained and the final report. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The system includes questions related to the number of images; the appropriateness of images in relation to the protocol established; focus adjustment; depth; gain; and appropriateness of the measurements for B-mode examinations. For Doppler examinations, the system includes questions related to the appropriateness of color images, the spectral analysis, and correction of the insonation angle. To assess the quality of the report, the system includes questions related to the consistency between the images obtained and the contents of the report. An overall numerical score was assigned by averaging the scores for image quality and for the contents of the report. Two independent examiners, each blinded to the evaluation of the other, assessed 30 different types of ultrasound examinations. RESULTS: There was statistically significant agreement between the two examiners for 8 of the 10 questions related to image quality. For the questions related to the quality of the reports, the interexaminer agreement was almost perfect. CONCLUSION: The proposed quantitative system for assessing the quality of ultrasound examinations is a reproducible tool that can be used in audits and accreditation programs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6034735 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por
Imagem |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60347352018-07-10 Reproducibility of a quantitative system for assessing the quality of diagnostic ultrasound Iared, Wagner Puchnick, Andrea Bancovsky, Eduardo Bettini, Paulo Roberto Vedolin, Leonardo Modesti Chammas, Maria Cristina Radiol Bras Articles OBJECTIVE: To present a quantitative system for assessing the quality of ultrasound examinations-SQUALUS-and to determine its reproducibility, taking into consideration the images on file, as well as the consistency between the images obtained and the final report. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The system includes questions related to the number of images; the appropriateness of images in relation to the protocol established; focus adjustment; depth; gain; and appropriateness of the measurements for B-mode examinations. For Doppler examinations, the system includes questions related to the appropriateness of color images, the spectral analysis, and correction of the insonation angle. To assess the quality of the report, the system includes questions related to the consistency between the images obtained and the contents of the report. An overall numerical score was assigned by averaging the scores for image quality and for the contents of the report. Two independent examiners, each blinded to the evaluation of the other, assessed 30 different types of ultrasound examinations. RESULTS: There was statistically significant agreement between the two examiners for 8 of the 10 questions related to image quality. For the questions related to the quality of the reports, the interexaminer agreement was almost perfect. CONCLUSION: The proposed quantitative system for assessing the quality of ultrasound examinations is a reproducible tool that can be used in audits and accreditation programs. Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6034735/ /pubmed/29991839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0100-3984.2017.0021 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Articles Iared, Wagner Puchnick, Andrea Bancovsky, Eduardo Bettini, Paulo Roberto Vedolin, Leonardo Modesti Chammas, Maria Cristina Reproducibility of a quantitative system for assessing the quality of diagnostic ultrasound |
title | Reproducibility of a quantitative system for assessing the quality of
diagnostic ultrasound |
title_full | Reproducibility of a quantitative system for assessing the quality of
diagnostic ultrasound |
title_fullStr | Reproducibility of a quantitative system for assessing the quality of
diagnostic ultrasound |
title_full_unstemmed | Reproducibility of a quantitative system for assessing the quality of
diagnostic ultrasound |
title_short | Reproducibility of a quantitative system for assessing the quality of
diagnostic ultrasound |
title_sort | reproducibility of a quantitative system for assessing the quality of
diagnostic ultrasound |
topic | Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6034735/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29991839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0100-3984.2017.0021 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT iaredwagner reproducibilityofaquantitativesystemforassessingthequalityofdiagnosticultrasound AT puchnickandrea reproducibilityofaquantitativesystemforassessingthequalityofdiagnosticultrasound AT bancovskyeduardo reproducibilityofaquantitativesystemforassessingthequalityofdiagnosticultrasound AT bettinipauloroberto reproducibilityofaquantitativesystemforassessingthequalityofdiagnosticultrasound AT vedolinleonardomodesti reproducibilityofaquantitativesystemforassessingthequalityofdiagnosticultrasound AT chammasmariacristina reproducibilityofaquantitativesystemforassessingthequalityofdiagnosticultrasound |