Prior Work

All three tools check DICOM metadata. In particular, xnat-dicomqc and dicomqc overlap in checking tags against rules. The useful differences are how they run, how checks are defined, and what the results are used for.

Aspect	dicomqc	xnat-dicomqc	SQAN
Main task	Audit metadata for privacy risks after de-identification.	Run project-defined DICOM tag QC on scans in XNAT.	Check imaging protocols and exams, and review results in a web portal.
Setup	Python CLI that scans local files and directories.	Docker container run through XNAT, with a plugin for QC data.	Services for data intake, QC, an API, and a web UI, backed by a database.
Checks	Built-in privacy checks plus YAML project policies; source/candidate comparisons for completeness and pseudonym consistency.	Tests defined in a project-level Excel configuration file.	Protocol and exam checks, with QC templates managed through the UI.
Results	Standalone HTML, JSON, CSV, and MultiQC-compatible files; exit codes for automated workflows.	QC data integrated into XNAT through its data-type plugin.	Stored metadata and QC results available through the API and portal.
Where they overlap	Tag checks and findings for review.	Tag checks and findings for review; overlap depends on the configured tests.	Metadata checks and review of QC results.

xnat-dicomqc already provides configurable tag QC. dicomqc's difference is its local command-line workflow and built-in privacy checks, not the idea of auditing DICOM tags. YAML policy files add project-specific checks.

This comparison uses the xnat-dicomqc README and SQAN README. It describes their documented features, not a head-to-head test of which tool detects more problems.

Where dicomqc fits

Use dicomqc after de-identification and alongside your site's QC tools and BIDS validator. It answers:

• Did the files pass the selected metadata checks?
• Which files and tags need review?
• Which profile and rule produced each finding?
• Can the results be saved without copying raw DICOM values into the report?