Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: A non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 80, Issue 951, 2007, Pages 169-176

  Båth, Magnus ^a   Mansson L G ^b  

^a SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; RATING SCALE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VISUAL GRADING CHARACTERISTIC;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RADIOGRAPHY; ROC CURVE; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 34347238949     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/35012658     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. CEC. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. Report EUR 16260 EN. Luxembourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities, 1996.
2. CEC. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images in paediatrics. Report EUR 16261 EN. Luxembourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities, 1996.
3. CEC. European guidelines on quality criteria for computed tomography. Report EUR 16262 EN. Luxembourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities, 1996.
4. Sund P, Herrmann C, Tingberg A, Kheddache S, Månsson LG, Almén A, et al. Comparison of two methods for evaluating image quality of chest radiographs. Proc SPIE 2000;3981:251-7.
5. Tingberg A, Herrmann C, Lanhede B, Almén A, Besjakov J, Mattsson S, et al. Comparison of two methods for evaluation of the image quality of lumbar spine radiographs. Radiat Prot Dosim 2000;90:165-8.
6. Sandborg M, McVey G, Dance DR, Alm Carlsson G. Comparison of model predictions of image quality with results of clinical trials in chest and lumbar spine screen-film imaging. Radiat Prot Dosim 2000;90:173-6.
7. Sandborg M, Tingberg A, Dance DR, Lanhede B, Almén A, McVey G, et al. Demonstration of correlations between clinical and physical image quality measures in chest and lumbar spine screen-film radiography. Br J Radiol 2001;74:520-8.
8. Tingberg A, Båth M, Håkansson M, Medin J, Besjakov J, Sandborg M, et al. Evaluation of image quality of lumbar spine images: a comparison between FFE and VGA. Radiat Prot Dosim 2005;114:53-61.
9. Månsson LG. Evaluation of radiographic procedures. Investigations related to chest imaging. (Thesis). Göteborg: Göteborg University; 1994.
10. Månsson LG. Methods for the evaluation of image quality: a review. Radiat Prot Dosim 2000;90:89-99.
11. Tingberg A. Quantifying the quality of medical X-ray images. An evaluation based on normal anatomy for lumbar spine and chest images. (Thesis). Lund: Lund University; 2000.
12. Båth M. Imaging properties of digital radiographic systems. Development, application and assessment of evaluation methods based on linear-systems theory. (Thesis). Göteborg: Göteborg University; 2003.
13. Chakraborty DP. Problems with the differential receiver operating characteristic (DROC) method. Proc SPIE 2004;5372:138-43.
14. Kundel HL. Images, image quality and observer performance. Radiology 1979;132:265-71.
15. Vucich J, Goodenough DJ, Lewicki A, Briefel E, Weaver KE. Use of anatomical criteria in screen/film selection for portable chest x-ray procedures. In: Cameron J, editor. Optimization of chest radiography. HHS Publication 80-8124. Rockville, MD: FDA, 1980:237-48.
16. Lanhede B, Båth M, Kheddache S. Sund P, Björneld L, Widell M, et al. The influence of different technique factors on image quality of chest radiographs as evaluated by modified CEC image quality criteria. Br J Radiol 2002;75:38-49.
17. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall, 1991.
18. Offiah AC, Hall CM. Evaluation of the Commission of the European Communities quality criteria for the paediatric lateral spine. Br J Radiol 2003;76:885-90.
19. Tingberg A, Herrmann C, Lanhede B, Almén A, Sandborg M, McVey G, et al. Influence of the characteristic curve on the clinical image quality of lumbar spine and chest radiographs. Br J Radiol 2004; 77:204-15.
20. Sund P, Båth M, Kheddache S, Månsson LG. Comparison of visual grading analysis and determination of detective quantum efficiency for evaluating system performance in digital chest radiography. Eur Radiol 2004;14:48-58.
21. Geijer H, Persliden J. Varied tube potential with constant effective dose at lumbar spine radiography using a flat-panel digital detector. Radiat Prot Dosim 2005;114:240-5.
22. Wiltz HJ, Petersen U, Axelsson B. Reduction of absorbed dose in storage phosphor urography by significant lowering of tube voltage and adjustment of image display parameters. Acta Radiol 2005;46:391-5.
23. Hemdal B, Andersson I, Grahn A, Håkansson M, Ruschin M, Thilander-Klang A, et al. Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria. Radiat Prot Dosim 2005;114:383-8.
24. Geijer H, Verdonck B, Beckman K-W, Andersson T, Persliden J. Digital radiography of scoliosis with a scanning method: initial evaluation. Radiology 2001;218:402-10.
25. Sonn U, Svensson E. Measures of individual and group changes in ordered categorical data: application to the ADL staircase. Scand J Rehabil Med 1997;29:233-42.
26. Metz CE. ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol 1986;21:720-33.
27. Hanley JA. Use of receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis in imaging experiments. In: Short Course Notes SC 34. Bellingham, WA: SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering, 1991.
28. Green DM, Swets JA. Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York, NY: Wiley, 1966.
29. Swets JA, Picket RM. Evaluation of diagnostic systems. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1982.
30. Hanley JA. The robustness of the binormal model used to fit ROC curves. Med Decis Making 1988;8:197-203.
31. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29-36.
32. Hannequin P, Liehn JC, Fortier A, Elaerts J, Valeyre J. Comparison of phase analysis with factor analysis in equilibrium gated radionuclide angiography. Nucl Med Commun 1986;7:857-64.
33. Almén A, Tingberg A, Besjakov J, Mattsson S. The use of reference image criteria in X-ray diagnostics: an application for the optimisation of lumbar spine radiographs. Eur Radiol 2004;14:1561-7.
34. Grahn A, Hemdal B, Andersson I, Ruschin M, Thilander-Klang A, Börjesson S, et al. Clinical evaluation of a new set of image quality criteria for mammography. Radiat Prot Dosim 2005;114:389-94.
35. Swets JA, Picket RM. Assessing diagnostic technologies: reply to Habicht. Science 1980;207:1415.
36. Habicht J-P. Assessing diagnostic technologies. Science 1980;207:1414.