Keywords:
Education and training, Diagnostic procedure, Digital radiography, Musculoskeletal bone
Authors:
K. McNally, K. Matthews; Dublin/IE
DOI:
10.26044/ecr2019/C-3387
Results
Location of centring points in clinical practice
The varying centring points reported by the focus groups are visually represented in Fig. 1,
Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.
The degree of variation between centring points
For each reported centring point,
the distance from the published centring point was estimated (Table 6).
Effect of centring on image quality score
Fig.
5 to Fig.
8 summarise the image quality score (IQS) for each image quality criterion at each centring point.
Fig. 5 shows that anatomical distortion was scored as non-diagnostic for centring points L3 (IQS=1) and L4 (IQS=0).
L1 scored the highest total IQS (IQS=15) of the reported lumbar spine centring points,
but is still regarded as lower in quality than the reference image.
Fig. 6 shows a large range of IQS for the reported knee centring points.
Both K1 (IQS=0) and K4 (IQS=0) attained non-diagnostic total IQS.
Even though K1 scored better for distortion (IQS=6) and anatomical clearance (IQS=5) than the reference image,
and equal for collimation (IQS=8),
it received a non-diagnostic exposure IQS (IQS=0).
Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 show that the reported centring points of the AP shoulder and lateral oblique hip projections scored fairly similar to the reference image.
S1 (IQS=18),
S2 (IQS=18),
H1 (IQS=18) and H3 (IQS=13) all scored equal total IQS to the reference image.
None of the reported shoulder or hip centring points received non-diagnostic IQS in any criteria.