Copyright
©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Radiol. Jul 28, 2016; 8(7): 707-715
Published online Jul 28, 2016. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v8.i7.707
Published online Jul 28, 2016. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v8.i7.707
Image qualityparameter | Scoring criteria |
Liver edge sharpness | 1 Non diagnostic; severe blurring |
2 Poor and unacceptable; moderate to severe blurring resulting in considerable loss of anatomic detail | |
3 Fair and acceptable; mild blurring resulting in acceptable images with minimal loss of anatomic detail | |
4 Good and diagnostic; barely perceptible blurring | |
5 Very good and sharp | |
Artifacts | 1 Non-diagnostic; severe artifacts |
2 Poor and unacceptable; moderate to severe artifacts resulting in significant loss of information | |
3 Fair and acceptable; mild artifacts and very minimal loss of information | |
4 Good and diagnostic; no perceptible artifacts in the area of interest and minimal artifacts at the margins | |
5 Very good; no artifacts | |
Hepatic vessel clarity | 1 Uninterpretable |
2 Severely blurred | |
3 Moderately blurred | |
4 Mildly blurred | |
5 Sharp | |
Lesion conspicuity | 1 Most lesions not seen |
2 Most lesions barely seen but margins and internal heterogeneity not well delineated | |
3 All lesions seen with at least 50% of the lesions showing good delineation of margins and internal heterogeneity | |
4 All lesions seen with at least 75% of lesions showing good delineation of the margins and internal heterogeneity | |
5 All lesions seen with good delineation of margins and internal heterogeneity | |
Fat saturation | 1 Unacceptable |
2 Poor | |
3 Fair | |
4 Good | |
5 Very good | |
Overall image quality | 1 Non-diagnostic |
2 Poor and unacceptable | |
3 Fair and acceptable | |
4 Good and diagnostic | |
5 Very good |
Image qualityparameter | Pre-contrast | Post-contrast | ||
rVIBE | cVIBE | rVIBE | cVIBE | |
Liver edge sharpness | 3.37 | 3.76 | 3.38 | 3.39 |
Hepatic vessel clarity | 3.26 | 3.61 | 3.09 | 3.81 |
Artifacts | 3.07 | 3.61 | 3.04 | 3.87 |
Lesion conspicuity | 3.16 | 3.61 | 3.24 | 4.00 |
Fat saturation | 3.96 | 4.02 | 4.10 | 4.22 |
Overall image quality | 3.26 | 3.77 | 3.21 | 4.04 |
Image qualityparameter | rVIBE | cVIBE | P value | ||
Mean | 95%CI | Mean | 95%CI | ||
Liver edge sharpness | 3.37 | 3.21-3.53 | 3.87 | 3.71-4.03 | < 0.001 |
Hepatic vessel clarity | 3.18 | 2.95-3.40 | 3.71 | 3.49-3.93 | < 0.001 |
Artifacts | 3.06 | 2.85-3.27 | 3.74 | 3.53-3.95 | < 0.001 |
Lesion conspicuity | 3.20 | 3.01-3.39 | 3.81 | 3.62-4.00 | < 0.001 |
Fat saturation | 4.03 | 3.78-4.27 | 4.12 | 3.88-4.37 | 0.17 |
Overall image quality | 3.24 | 3.02-3.45 | 3.91 | 3.69-4.12 | < 0.001 |
- Citation: Yedururi S, Kang HC, Wei W, Wagner-Bartak NA, Marcal LP, Stafford RJ, Willis BJ, Szklaruk J. Free-breathing radial volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination vs breath-hold cartesian volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination magnetic resonance imaging of the liver at 1.5T. World J Radiol 2016; 8(7): 707-715
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8470/full/v8/i7/707.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v8.i7.707