Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]942118
• MRI Equipment Research •
Clinical image quality evaluation and comparison between different MRI equipment in the central nervous system
WANG Simin  LI Yan  YAN Fuhua  ZHANG Huan  ZHAI Jing  JIN Zhijia  WANG Bingshun  DU Lianjun 

Cite this article as: Wang SM, Li Y, Yan FH, et al. Clinical image quality evaluation and comparison between different MRI equipment in the central nervous system. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019, 10(2): 83-88. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2019.02.002.


[Abstract] Objective: To evaluate and compare the clinical image quality of central nervous system of different types of MRI imaging equipment.Materials and Methods: According to the "MRI Accreditation Program Clinical Image Quality Guide" issued by the American College of Radiology in 2013, 531 cases of non-contrast brain MRI images were collected from more than 40 medical institutions nationwide, and 4 common sequences of these cases were evaluated by Likert five-point scale method. All the samples were divided into domestic group and imported group, as well as 1.5 T group and 3.0 T group for comparative study.Results: In the comparative study, most clinical image evaluation indexes of the 3.0 T group were better than those of the 1.5 T group (P<0.05). In the 1.5 T group, most evaluation indexes of the imported subgroup were superior to those of the domestic subgroup (P <0.05). In the 3.0 T group, the difference of most evaluation indexes between domestic and imported subgroups were not statistically significant. In the 1.5 T group, one of the domestic equipment (United Imaging) and other imported equipment (Siemens and GE) were selected for comparative study. Some evaluation indexes of the domestic equipment were better than those of the imported equipment, but there was still a gap between domestic and imported equipment with respect to some other evaluation indexes.Conclusions: In the aspect of the central nervous system MRI imaging, the image quality of the 3.0 T equipment is generally superior to that of the 1.5 T equipment, and the image quality of the domestic equipment is better than that of the imported equipment in some aspects, but there still exist some gaps between the overall level of the image quality of the domestic equipment and that of the imported equipment to some extent.
[Keywords] medical equipment；magnetic resonance imaging；clinical image quality；central nervous system；comparative study

WANG Simin Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China

LI Yan Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China

YAN Fuhua Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China

ZHANG Huan Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China

ZHAI Jing School of Public Health, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200025, China

JIN Zhijia Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China

WANG Bingshun Department of Biostatistics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China

DU Lianjun* Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China

*Correspondence to: Du LJ, E-mail: dlj10788@rjh.com.cn

Conflicts of interest   None.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  This work was part of National Key Research and Development Program of China No.2016YFC0106800, 2016YFC0106802, 2016YFC0106805
Received  2018-12-21
Accepted  2019-01-18
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2019.02.002
Cite this article as: Wang SM, Li Y, Yan FH, et al. Clinical image quality evaluation and comparison between different MRI equipment in the central nervous system. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019, 10(2): 83-88. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2019.02.002.

[1]
姜楠．核磁共振成像系统日常质量控制方法研究进展．中国医疗设备, 2016, 31(4): 85-86.
[2]
刘雅文，尹红霞，杨娉娉，等. MRI设备临床质量控制流程和制度的现状与发展趋势．中国医学影像技术, 2017, 33(11): 1615-1619.
[3]
杨正汉，王振常．重视MRI设备临床质量控制——发挥设备最优性能.中国医学影像技术, 2017, 33(11): 1605-1606.
[4]
American College of Radiology (ACR). Magnetic resonance imaging quality control manual: 2015. Reton: ACR, 2015: 1-120.
[5]
蔡葵．磁共振质量控制和质量保证在临床工作和科学研究中的意义.中国医疗设备, 2008, 23(7): 139-142.
[6]
American College of Radiology. MRI accreditation program clinical image quality guide. 2013-05-22.
[7]
中国医学装备协会．中国医学装备发展状况与趋势（2018)．北京：人民卫生出版社, 2018.
[8]
中国医学装备协会. 2015年MRI设备市场研究报告. 2016-03-19.
[9]
储呈晨，王龙辰，毕帆，等．磁共振图像质量控制中的若干评价指标探讨．中国医疗设备, 2016, 31(7): 124-127.
[10]
易元月．头部MRI质量控制措施及标准的探讨//中华医学会，重庆市医学会．中华医学会放射学分会第十四届全国神经和头颈部放射学学术会议暨重庆市医学会第七届放射学学术会议论文集．重庆, 2012: 83.
[11]
李继平．临床核磁共振成像质量保证．影像研究与医学应用, 2018, 16(2): 199-120.
[12]
齐志刚，姚新宇，郑卓肇，等．北京市40家三甲医院MRI质控检查回顾．中国医疗设备, 2014, 29(1): 14-15.
[13]
张晨，蔡葵，蔡杰，等．高场头颈部磁共振检查的质量控制．中国医疗设备, 2008, 23(7): 150-152.
[14]
邱晓力，钱兵，包家立，等．国产永磁型磁共振成像设备的卫生技术评估．中国医疗设备, 2016, 31(4): 14-17, 22.
[15]
王建．构建国产磁共振设备的"全球定位系统".磁共振成像, 2016, 7(11): 801-803.
[16]
孙伟，姚秀忠，冯豪，等. FLAIR序列参数优化对图像质量的研究．实用放射学杂志, 2014, 30(11): 1906-1909.
[17]
王国伟，韩国虎，王洪生．国产磁共振扫描参数的优化．现代医用影像学, 2014, 23(5): 600, 603.

PREV To establish user,s demand analysis and magnetic resonance image quality evaluation specifications and to promote the innovation and development of magnetic resonance imaging technology
NEXT Clinical image quality evaluation of diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the brain of different medical MRI equipment
  


LINK


Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: editor@cjmri.cn