The relationship between these errors and the image quality grade is evaluated for each parameter.
In this study we present inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of a qualitative image quality grading score and report the prevalence of repeat acquisitions in our population.
Figure 2 Examples of the grading of image quality (grading 1 to 5).
Also, to evaluate if the performance of the algorithm was dependent on patient size, the results from the single evaluation were grouped into four intervals of patient BMI (<20, 20 25, 25 30, >30), and the image quality grading in each interval was determined.
Noticeably, the proportion of good-to-excellent image quality grade in the apical four-chamber view used to visually assess LVEF was not significantly different with the US and TTE (grades 2 and 3: 54/94 vs 61/94; P = 0.37), and LVEF was not visually evaluable in a similar proportion of patients (12/94 vs 10/94: P = 0.50).
The image quality was graded as poor, sufficient, or good with regard to detectability of diagnostically relevant findings.
Image quality was graded 1 4 (1 = unusable, 2 = poor, 3 = adequate, 4 = excellent).
The procedure was well tolerated by 18 out of 19 patients, took only 69±± 5 minutes of patient time, and image quality was graded as good to excellent by radiologists.
Image quality was graded on a scale from 1 (excellent) to 4 (very poor) and the composite image score (total score out of a possible 20 for five views: parasternal short and long axis, apical, subcostal and IVC views) was compared between groups using the Wilcoxin paired test.
The subjective image quality parameters and grading system were adapted from the European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for CT document [36] and were selected on the basis of findings of previous studies [28, 37].
Observer-based systems for grading image quality and criteria for deciding when to repeat an acquisition and post hoc data quality control remain highly subjective and non-standardized.
