Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Friedman, D. P.
Right arrow Articles by Mishkin, M. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Friedman, D. P.
Right arrow Articles by Mishkin, M. M.

Radiology, Vol 196, 219-226, Copyright © 1995 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

MR imaging: quality assessment method and ratings at 33 centers

DP Friedman, GF Rosetti, AE Flanders, CW Piccoli, VM Rao, DG Mitchell, LM Tartaglino, CF Gonzalez, ME Schweitzer and MM Mishkin
Department of Radiology, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.

PURPOSE: To outline a quality assessment method with peer review for magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three providers in the Philadelphia area were rated on a random sample of 132 brain, 124 cervical spine, and 113 lower extremity MR imaging examinations performed during 1990. Blinded peer review was performed by panels of three subspecialty-trained academic radiologists. Technical performance, completeness, and report appropriateness of each MR imaging examination were evaluated. Aggregated scores were calculated to rate provider performance for each of the three parameters of quality. RESULTS: Two or three panelists assessed technical performance as inadequate in 15 cases, completeness as incomplete in 58 cases, and the interpretative report as inappropriate and affecting treatment in 72 cases. Eleven providers received an unsatisfactory rating on one or more parameters of quality. The association between unsatisfactory ratings and the use of low-field- strength (< or = 0.6-T) imagers was statistically significant (P < .008). CONCLUSION: Substantial deficiencies were identified in the performance of examinations and interpretation of MR images in the Philadelphia area in 1990. These findings indicate the need for a program to monitor quality of MR imaging.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
D. C. Levin, J. G. Jarvik, and R. A. Deyo
Variations in the Quality of Lumbar Spine MR Imaging in Washington State Drs Jarvik and Deyo respond:
Radiology, February 1, 2001; 218(2): 603 - 603.
[Full Text]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
D. C. Levin, V. M. Rao, R. L. Bree, and H. L. Neiman
Turf Battles in Radiology: How the Radiology Community Can Collectively Respond to the Challenge
Radiology, May 1, 1999; 211(2): 301 - 305.
[Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1995 by the Radiological Society of North America.