Table 7.
Tractography quality assessment methods used by each article included in the review, with consequent risk of bias assessment.
| Article | Risk of bias assessment | Direct visual assessment | Direct visual assessment (ranking score) | % crossing fibers reconstructed | Surgical evaluation | Other evaluation methods | Quality measurement methods | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| He (2021) | Low | Multiple methods used to assess the anatomical fidelity. Both qualitative and computational quality methods used | ● | ● | ● | Other: Comparison of mutual spatial overlap between reconstructions by NOS method. | ||
| Jin (2019) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| Kammen (2016) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| Kamali (2014) | Medium | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Different experimenters performed evaluations | ● | superimposed on T1w image. Repeated by 2 experts | ||||
| Maleki (2012) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| Akazawa (2010) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| Hofer (2010) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | ● | ||||
| Staempfli (2007) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| Manners (2022) | Low | Multiple methods used to assess the anatomical fidelity. Both qualitative and computational quality methods used | ● | ● | ● | Other: measure of the superimposition between crossing and non-crossing fibers using DICE coeff | ||
| Puzniak (2021) | Low | Quantitative computational quality method used to assess the anatomical fidelity | ● | Other: RMSE of the Connectome | ||||
| Ather (2019) | Low | Quantitative computational quality method used to assess the anatomical fidelity | ● | Percentage of crossing fibers reconstructed | ||||
| J Puzniak (2019) | Low | Quantitative computational quality method used to assess the anatomical fidelity | ● | ID - decussation index | ||||
| Takemura (2019) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| Lecler (2018) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| Davies-Thompson (2013) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| Miler (2019) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | superimposed to T1w image | ||||
| Allen (2018) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | superimposed on T1w image | ||||
| Altıntaş (2017) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| Chakravarthi (2021) | Low | Direct comparison with ground truth anatomy performed. | ● | surgical evaluation | ||||
| Liang (2021) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| Ho (2019) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| Jacquesson (2019) | Low | Two methods used to assess the anatomical fidelity | ● | ● | comparison with CISS | |||
| Wu (2019) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| Lin (2018) | Medium | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Different experimenters performed evaluations | ● | using 3D models (16 experts) | ||||
| Ma (2017) | Low | Two methods used to assess the anatomical fidelity | ● | ● | ||||
| Zolal (2017) | Low | Multiple methods used to assess the anatomical fidelity. Both qualitative and computational quality methods used | ● | ● | ● | Other: DICE coeff between reconstruction and a T1w segmentation; false positive fibers rate | ||
| Yoshino (2016) | Medium | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Different experimenters performed evaluations | ● | superimposed on T1w image. Repeated by 3 experts | ||||
| Haijabadi (2016) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| Ge (2015) | Low | Two methods used to assess the anatomical fidelity | ● | ● | ||||
| Haijabadi (2015) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| De Blank (2013) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| Lober (2012) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| Zhang (2012) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| Hodaie (2010) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | Comparison to known easily reconstructable structure (anterior commissure) | ||||
| Salmela (2009) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| Tao (2009) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| Techavipoo (2009) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | Superimposed on T1w image | ||||
| Lacerda (2021) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
| Yang (2011) | High | Only direct visual assessment of the anatomical fidelity used. Same experimenter performed reconstructions and evaluations | ● | |||||
Abbreviations: NOS - normalized overlap score; ROE - region of exclusion; RMSE - root mean square error; LiFE – linear fascicle evaluation; CISS – constructive interference in steady-state.