European Radiology

, Volume 14, Issue 10, pp 1859–1865 | Cite as

MRI quality control: six imagers studied using eleven unified image quality parameters

  • T. Ihalainen
  • O. Sipilä
  • S. SavolainenEmail author


Quality control of the magnetic resonance imagers of different vendors in the clinical environment is non-harmonised, and comparing the performance is difficult. The purpose of this study was to develop and apply a harmonised long-term quality control protocol for the six imagers in our organisation in order to assure that they fulfil the same basic image quality requirements. The same Eurospin phantom set and identical imaging parameters were used with each imager. Values of 11 comparable parameters describing the image quality were measured. Automatic image analysis software was developed to objectively analyse the images. The results proved that the imagers were operating at a performance level adequate for clinical imaging. Some deficiencies were detected in image uniformity and geometry. The automated analysis of the Eurospin phantom images was successful. The measurements were successfully repeated after 2 weeks on one imager and after half a year on all imagers. As an objective way of examining the image quality, this kind of comparable and objective quality control of different imagers is considered as an essential step towards harmonisation of the clinical MRI studies through a large hospital organisation.


Magnetic resonance imaging Phantoms Imaging Quality control 


  1. 1.
    Kugel H, Bremer C et al (2003) Hazardous situation in the MR bore: induction in ECG leads causes fire. Eur Radiol 13:690–694PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Certaines JD, Cathelineau G (2001) Safety aspects and quality assessment in MRI and MRS: a challenge for health care systems in Europe. J Magn Reson Imaging 13:632–638CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Price RR, Axel L et al (1990) Quality assurance methods and phantoms for magnetic resonance imaging: report of AAPM nuclear magnetic resonance task group No. 1. Med Phys 17:287–295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Och JG, Clarke GD et al (1992) Acceptance testing of magnetic resonance imaging systems: report of AAPM nuclear magnetic resonance task group No. 6. Med Phys 19:217–229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    American College of Radiology (2000) Site scanning instructions for use of the MR phantom for the ACR MRI accreditation programGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    American College of Radiology (2000) Phantom test guidance for the ACR MRI accreditation programGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    American College of Radiology (2001) Magnetic resonance imaging quality control manualGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lerski RA (1993) Trial of modifications to Eurospin MRI test objects. Magn Reson Imaging 11:835–839PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lerski RA, de Certaines JD (1993) Performance assessment and quality control in MRI by Eurospin test objects and protocols. Magn Reson Imaging 11:817–833PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Firbank MJ, Harrison RM et al (2000) Quality assurance for MRI: practical experience. Br J Radiol 73:376–383Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gardner EA, Ellis JH et al (1995) Detection of degradation of magnetic resonance (MR) images: comparison of an automated MR image-quality analysis system with trained human observers. Acad Radiol 2:277–281PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bourel P, Gibon D et al (1999) Automatic quality assessment protocol for MRI equipment. Med Phys 26:2693–2700CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diagnostic Sonar Ltd (1992–1995) Eurospin II magnetic resonance quality assessment test objects. Instructions for use, Livingston, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Electrical Manufacturers Association (1988). Determination of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in diagnostic magnetic resonance images. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaufman L, Kramer DM et al (1989) Measuring signal-to-noise ratios in MR imaging. Radiology 173:265–267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haacke EM, Brown RW et al (1999) Magnetic resonance imaging. Physical principles and sequence design. Wiley, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hough PVC (1962). Methods and means for recognising complex patterns. US Patent 3 069 654Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Price RR, Allison J et al (2002) Practical aspects of functional MRI (NMR Task group #8). Med Phys 29:1892–1912CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyHelsinki University Central HospitalHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Department of Physical SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsingin YliopistoFinland
  3. 3.Laboratory DiagnosticsHelsinki University Central HospitalHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations