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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Iared, Wagner, Puchnick, Andrea, Bancovsky, Eduardo, Bettini, Paulo Roberto, Vedolin, Leonardo Modesti, Chammas, Maria Cristina
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