Clinical image quality evaluation of diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the brain of different medical MRI equipment
Simin WANG,Yan LI,Fuhua YAN,Huan ZHANG,Zhijia JIN,Jing ZHAI,Bingshun WANG,Wenqiang FANG
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2019.02.003
2019-01-01
Abstract:Objective: To evaluate and compare the clinical image quality of brain diffusionweighted imaging sequence between different types of medical MRI equipment. Materials and Methods: Based on the "Clinical Image Quality Guide" issued by American College of Radiology, we made both subjective and objective image quaity evaluation of 531 cases of clinical brain MRI DWI sequences. Subjective evaluation was conducted mainly by Likert five-point scale method, and the objective evaluation was realized by measureing the signalto-noise ratio of the region of interest. The images were divided into domestic and imported groups, as well as 1.5 T and 3.0 T groups according to the types of the scanning equipment for comparative studies, and domestic 1.5 T and 3.0 T MRI equipments of United Imaging were selected as representatives to be compared with the imported equipment. Results: (1) In the subjective evaluation, the 3.0 T group was better than the 1.5 T group and the domestic group was better than the imported group. In the objective evaluation, the 1.5 T group was better than the 3.0 T group and the difference between the domestic and imported groups was not statistically significant. (2) In the 1.5 T group, both subjective and objective evaluation of the domestic subgroup was better than that of the imported subgroup. In the 3.0 T group, the difference of the subjective evaluation between these two subgroups was not statistically significant, and the objective evaluation of the imported subgroup was superior to that of the domestic subgroup. (3) In the 1.5 T group, both subjective and objective evaluation of United Imaging was superior to that of the imported equipment. In the 3.0 T group, the difference of the subjective evaluation between United Imaging and the imported equipment was not statistically significant;the objective evaluation of United Imaging was better than that of GE, but there was a gap of the outcome between United Imaging and Philips, and the difference of the evaluation between United Imaging and Siemens was not statistically significant. Conclusions: With respect to the brain diffusion-weighted imaging, the clinical image quality of the 1.5 T domestic MRI equipment may be better than that of the imported equipment, but there is a gap of the image quality between domestic and imported equipment of 3.0 T field intensity.