Reliability of the image evaluation system PGMI

Détails

Ressource 1Demande d'une copie Sous embargo indéterminé.
Accès restreint UNIL
Etat: Public
Version: de l'auteur⸱e
ID Serval
serval:BIB_7F2B37446A92
Type
Actes de conférence (partie): contribution originale à la littérature scientifique, publiée à l'occasion de conférences scientifiques, dans un ouvrage de compte-rendu (proceedings), ou dans l'édition spéciale d'un journal reconnu (conference proceedings).
Sous-type
Abstract (résumé de présentation): article court qui reprend les éléments essentiels présentés à l'occasion d'une conférence scientifique dans un poster ou lors d'une intervention orale.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
Reliability of the image evaluation system PGMI
Titre de la conférence
ECR 2010, 22nd European Congress of Radiology
Auteur⸱e⸱s
Richli Meystre N., Buliard J.L., Ducros C., Guerry E., Ledermann D., Lepori D., Watrin M., Meuwly J.Y.
Adresse
Vienna, Austria, March 4-8, 2010
ISBN
1869-4101
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2010
Volume
1
Série
Insights into Imaging
Pages
S259
Langue
anglais
Notes
[Oral presentation #B-587)
Résumé
Purpose: Many countries used the PGMI (P=perfect, G=good, M=moderate, I=inadequate) classification system for assessing the quality of mammograms. Limits inherent to the subjectivity of this classification have been shown. Prior to introducing this system in Switzerland, we wanted to better understand the origin of this subjectivity in order to minimize it. Our study aimed at identifying the main determinants of the variability of the PGMI system and which criteria are the most subjected to subjectivity.
Methods and Materials: A focus group composed of 2 experienced radiographers and 2 radiologists specified each PGMI criterion. Ten raters (6 radiographers and 4 radiologists) evaluated twice a panel of 40 randomly selected mammograms (20 analogic and 20 digital) according to these specified PGMI criteria. The PGMI classification was assessed and the intra- and inter-rater reliability was tested for each professional group (radiographer vs radiologist), image technology (analogic vs digital) and PGMI criterion.
Results: Some 3,200 images were assessed. The intra-rater reliability appears to be weak, particularly in respect to inter-rater variability. Subjectivity appears to be largely independent of the professional group and image technology. Aspects of the PGMI classification criteria most subjected to variability were identified.
Conclusion: Post-test discussions enabled to specify more precisely some criteria. This should reduce subjectivity when applying the PGMI classification system. A concomitant, important effort in training radiographers is also necessary.
Création de la notice
28/07/2010 7:14
Dernière modification de la notice
20/08/2019 14:40
Données d'usage