Skip to main content
. 2016 Jul 28;8(7):707–715. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v8.i7.707

Table 1.

Image quality parameters and scoring criteria

Image quality parameter Scoring criteria
Liver edge sharpness 1 Non diagnostic; severe blurring
2 Poor and unacceptable; moderate to severe blurring resulting in considerable loss of anatomic detail
3 Fair and acceptable; mild blurring resulting in acceptable images with minimal loss of anatomic detail
4 Good and diagnostic; barely perceptible blurring
5 Very good and sharp
Artifacts 1 Non-diagnostic; severe artifacts
2 Poor and unacceptable; moderate to severe artifacts resulting in significant loss of information
3 Fair and acceptable; mild artifacts and very minimal loss of information
4 Good and diagnostic; no perceptible artifacts in the area of interest and minimal artifacts at the margins
5 Very good; no artifacts
Hepatic vessel clarity 1 Uninterpretable
2 Severely blurred
3 Moderately blurred
4 Mildly blurred
5 Sharp
Lesion conspicuity 1 Most lesions not seen
2 Most lesions barely seen but margins and internal heterogeneity not well delineated
3 All lesions seen with at least 50% of the lesions showing good delineation of margins and internal heterogeneity
4 All lesions seen with at least 75% of lesions showing good delineation of the margins and internal heterogeneity
5 All lesions seen with good delineation of margins and internal heterogeneity
Fat saturation 1 Unacceptable
2 Poor
3 Fair
4 Good
5 Very good
Overall image quality 1 Non-diagnostic
2 Poor and unacceptable
3 Fair and acceptable
4 Good and diagnostic
5 Very good