The assessment of image quality and diagnostic value in X-ray images: a survey on radiographers' reasons for rejecting images
- PMID: 35244800
- PMCID: PMC8894552
- DOI: 10.1186/s13244-022-01169-9
The assessment of image quality and diagnostic value in X-ray images: a survey on radiographers' reasons for rejecting images
Abstract
Background: Assessing the quality of diagnostic images is subjective and influenced by factors such education, skills, and experience of the assessor. This study aims to explore the radiographers' assessments of medical usefulness or rejection of X-ray images in specific cases.
Results: Eighty-one radiographers from different countries responded to the questionnaire distributed online at the EFRS research HUB at ECR 2020 (a 15% response rate). Forty-two percent of the respondents practiced in the UK and Ireland. In addition to rejecting or keeping images in the presented 30 cases and giving a main reason for the images rejected, the participants explained their choice using comments, 1176 comments were obtained. Sixty percent of the comments were on kept images. The respondents kept on average 63% of the images. In the "Keep", "Could keep", and "Reject" categories on average 84%, 63% and 43% of images were kept respectively. The most common reasons given for rejecting an image were suboptimal positioning and centering. Potential diagnostic value and radiation protection were indicated as reasons to keep an image perceived as of low quality reported in n = 353 and n = 33 comments respectively.
Conclusions: There is an agreement internationally on what makes a good quality X-ray image. However, the opinion on medical usefulness of images of low or poor quality compared to image criteria varies. Diagnostic capability and radiation protection was the rationale used for keeping images not fulfilling image criteria. There seems to be a need for diagnostic quality to be included in image assessment in clinical practice.
Keywords: Image quality; Radiography; Radiology; Retake; Survey.
© 2022. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Figures
References
-
- Carmichael JHE, Maccia C, Moores BM, et al. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. EU Publication; 2000.
-
- Maccia C, Moores BM, Wall BF. The 1991 CEC trial on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images: detailed results and findings. EN Luxembourg Office for Official Publication of the European Communities; 1997.
-
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (2018) Radiation protection and safety in medical uses of ionizing radiation, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SSG-46. IAEA: Vienna. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/PUB1775_web.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2021
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources