title: Diagnostic image quality in gynaecological ultrasound: Who should measure it, what should we measure and how?
abstract: Assessment of diagnostic image quality in gynaecological ultrasound is an important aspect of imaging department quality assurance. This may be addressed through audit, but who should undertake the audit, what should be measured and how, remains contentious. The aim of this study was to identify whether peer audit is a suitable method of assessing the diagnostic quality of gynaecological ultrasound images. Nineteen gynaecological ultrasound studies were independently assessed by six sonographers utilising a pilot version of an audit tool. Outcome measures were levels of inter-rater agreement using different data collection methods (binary scores, Likert scale, continuous scale), effect of ultrasound study difficulty on study score and whether systematic differences were present between reviewers of different clinical grades and length of experience. Inter-rater agreement ranged from moderate to good depending on the data collection method. A continuous scale gave the highest level of inter-rater agreement with an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.73. A strong correlation (r = 0.89) between study difficulty and study score was yielded. Length of clinical experience between reviewers had no effect on the audit scores, but individuals of a higher clinical grade gave significantly lower scores than those of a lower grade (p = 0.04). Peer audit is a promising tool in the assessment of ultrasound image quality. Continuous scales seem to be the best method of data collection implying a strong element of heuristically driven decision making by reviewing ultrasound practitioners.
authors.affiliation: Department of Diagnostic Ultrasound, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, UK.
authors.forename: Peter
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Cantin
authors.affiliation: Medical Imaging, College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
authors.forename: Karen
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Knapp
keywords: Ultrasound; audit; gynaecology; heuristics; image quality