Titre
Reliability of the image evaluation system PGMI
Type
abstract de conférence/colloque
Institution
UNIL/CHUV/Unisanté + institutions partenaires
Série
Insights into Imaging
Auteur(s)
Richli Meystre, N.
Auteure/Auteur
Buliard, J.L.
Auteure/Auteur
Ducros, C.
Auteure/Auteur
Guerry, E.
Auteure/Auteur
Ledermann, D.
Auteure/Auteur
Lepori, D.
Auteure/Auteur
Watrin, M.
Auteure/Auteur
Meuwly, J.Y.
Auteure/Auteur
Liens vers les personnes
Liens vers les unités
Titre du livre ou conférence/colloque
ECR 2010, 22nd European Congress of Radiology
Adresse
Vienna, Austria, March 4-8, 2010
ISBN
1869-4101
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2010
Volume
1
Première page
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.
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.
PID Serval
serval:BIB_7F2B37446A92
Date de création
2010-07-28T06:14:22.566Z
Date de création dans IRIS
2025-05-21T01:10:58Z
Fichier(s)![Vignette d'image]()
En cours de chargement...
Nom
BIB_7F2B37446A92.P001.pdf
Version du manuscrit
preprint
Taille
169.78 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
PID Serval
serval:BIB_7F2B37446A92.P001
Somme de contrôle
(MD5):15f79e05da05ff2740e1c8ef316f6da8