Development and content validity evaluation of a candidate instrument to assess image quality in digital mammography: A mixed-method study.

Content validity evaluation Content validity index Digital mammography Directed content analysis Image quality evaluation Visual grading analysis

Journal

European journal of radiology
ISSN: 1872-7727
Titre abrégé: Eur J Radiol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 8106411

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Historique:
received: 11 11 2020
revised: 27 11 2020
accepted: 30 11 2020
pubmed: 12 12 2020
medline: 15 4 2021
entrez: 11 12 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To develop a candidate instrument to assess image quality in digital mammography, by identifying clinically relevant features in images that are affected by lower image quality. Interviews with fifteen expert breast radiologists from five countries were conducted and analysed by using adapted directed content analysis. During these interviews, 45 mammographic cases, containing 44 lesions (30 cancers, 14 benign findings), and 5 normal cases, were shown with varying image quality. The interviews were performed to identify the structures from breast tissue and lesions relevant for image interpretation, and to investigate how image quality affected the visibility of those structures. The interview findings were used to develop tentative items, which were evaluated in terms of wording, understandability, and ambiguity with expert breast radiologists. The relevance of the tentative items was evaluated using the content validity index (CVI) and modified kappa index (k*). Twelve content areas, representing the content of image quality in digital mammography, emerged from the interviews and were converted into 29 tentative items. Fourteen of these items demonstrated excellent CVI ≥ 0.78 (k* > 0.74), one showed good CVI < 0.78 (0.60 ≤ k* ≤ 0.74), while fourteen were of fair or poor CVI < 0.78 (k* ≤ 0.59). In total, nine items were deleted and five were revised or combined resulting in 18 items. By following a mixed-method methodology, a candidate instrument was developed that may be used to characterise the clinically-relevant impact that image quality variations can have on digital mammography.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33307458
pii: S0720-048X(20)30654-9
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109464
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

109464

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Joana Boita (J)

Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538 SW, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Anetta Bolejko (A)

Department of Medical Imaging and Physiology, Translational Medicine Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Carl Bertil Laurells gata 9, SE-20502, Malmö, Sweden.

Sophia Zackrisson (S)

Department of Medical Imaging and Physiology, Translational Medicine Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Carl Bertil Laurells gata 9, SE-20502, Malmö, Sweden.

Matthew G Wallis (MG)

Cambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge & NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.

Debra M Ikeda (DM)

Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 875 Blake Wilbur Dr. Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.

Chantal Van Ongeval (C)

Department of Radiology, Radiology, UZ Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, Leuven, B-3000, Belgium.

Ruben E van Engen (RE)

Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538 SW, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Alistair Mackenzie (A)

National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, GU2 7XX, UK.

Anders Tingberg (A)

Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Translational Medicine Malmö, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Carl Bertil Laurells gata 9, SE-20502, Malmö, Sweden.

Hilde Bosmans (H)

Department of Radiology, Radiology, UZ Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, Leuven, B-3000, Belgium; Department of Imaging and Pathology, Radiology, KUL, Herestraat 49, Leuven, B-3000, Belgium.

Ruud Pijnappel (R)

Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538 SW, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.

Ioannis Sechopoulos (I)

Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538 SW, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Mireille Broeders (M)

Dutch Expert Centre for Screening (LRCB), Wijchenseweg 101, 6538 SW, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: mireille.broeders@radboudumc.nl.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH