Criteria | Score | |||||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||
Edge sharpness | Unacceptable | Suboptimal | Average | Above average | Excellent | |||
Presence of artifact (streak, blotchy appearance) | Severely degraded beyond interpretation | Major degradation making interpretation difficulty | Mild degradation of image quality | Minimal artifacts apparent | No artifacts evident | |||
Anatomical clarity: | ||||||||
Hepatic portal v eins | Not identified at all | First order branches somewhat distinguishable | First order branches well delineated | Second order branches well delineated | Third order branches well delineated | |||
Rectal mucosa | Rectal lumen not identified | Rectal lumen somewhat visualized | Rectal mucosal folds barely identifiable | Rectal mucosal folds fairly distinct | Mucosa folds and serosal lining well demarcated | |||
Gastric rugae | Gastric lumen not identified | Gastric lumen somewhat visualized | Gastric rugae partially identifiable | Gastric rugae fully visualized but folds mutually indistinct | Gastric folds mutually distinct | |||
Ureters | Not identified at all | Proximal portion identified with difficulty | Proximal ureter well identified, mid ureter less evident | Mid ureter clearly identified, distal ureter less evident | Ureter clearly evident from UPJ to UVJ | |||
Subjective impression overall: | ||||||||
Overall diagnostic acceptability | Nondiagnostic | Extremely limited value | Likely useful for a handful of indications | Useful for many routine indications | Useful for most conceivable indications | |||
Score = 20% (sharpness/artifact) + 50% (anatomical clarity) + 30% (overall diagnostic acceptability) | ||||||||