Cargando…
AAPM task group report 305: Guidance for standardization of vendor‐neutral reject analysis in radiography
Reject rate analysis is considered an integral part of a diagnostic radiography quality control (QC) program. A rejected image is a patient radiograph that was not presented to a radiologist for diagnosis and that contributes unnecessary radiation dose to the patient. Reject rates that are either to...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10161059/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36995917 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13938 |
_version_ | 1785037411196076032 |
---|---|
author | Little, Kevin Reiser, Ingrid Apgar, Bruce Dalal, Poonam Dave, Jaydev Fisher, Ryan Hulme, Katie Jafari, Mary Ellen Marshall, Emily Meyer, Stephen Moore, Quentin Murphy, Nicole Nishino, Thomas Nye, Katelyn O'Donnell, Kevin Sabol, John Sanchez, Adrian Sensakovic, William Tarbox, Lawrence Uzenoff, Robert Walz‐Flannigan, Alisa Willis, Charles Zhang, Jie |
author_facet | Little, Kevin Reiser, Ingrid Apgar, Bruce Dalal, Poonam Dave, Jaydev Fisher, Ryan Hulme, Katie Jafari, Mary Ellen Marshall, Emily Meyer, Stephen Moore, Quentin Murphy, Nicole Nishino, Thomas Nye, Katelyn O'Donnell, Kevin Sabol, John Sanchez, Adrian Sensakovic, William Tarbox, Lawrence Uzenoff, Robert Walz‐Flannigan, Alisa Willis, Charles Zhang, Jie |
author_sort | Little, Kevin |
collection | PubMed |
description | Reject rate analysis is considered an integral part of a diagnostic radiography quality control (QC) program. A rejected image is a patient radiograph that was not presented to a radiologist for diagnosis and that contributes unnecessary radiation dose to the patient. Reject rates that are either too high or too low may suggest systemic department shortcomings in QC mechanisms. Due to the lack of standardization, reject data often cannot be easily compared between radiography systems from different vendors. The purpose of this report is to provide guidance to help standardize data elements that are required for comprehensive reject analysis and to propose data reporting and workflows to enable an effective and comprehensive reject rate monitoring program. Essential data elements, a proposed schema for classifying reject reasons, and workflow implementation options are recommended in this task group report. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10161059 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101610592023-05-06 AAPM task group report 305: Guidance for standardization of vendor‐neutral reject analysis in radiography Little, Kevin Reiser, Ingrid Apgar, Bruce Dalal, Poonam Dave, Jaydev Fisher, Ryan Hulme, Katie Jafari, Mary Ellen Marshall, Emily Meyer, Stephen Moore, Quentin Murphy, Nicole Nishino, Thomas Nye, Katelyn O'Donnell, Kevin Sabol, John Sanchez, Adrian Sensakovic, William Tarbox, Lawrence Uzenoff, Robert Walz‐Flannigan, Alisa Willis, Charles Zhang, Jie J Appl Clin Med Phys AAPM Reports & Documents Reject rate analysis is considered an integral part of a diagnostic radiography quality control (QC) program. A rejected image is a patient radiograph that was not presented to a radiologist for diagnosis and that contributes unnecessary radiation dose to the patient. Reject rates that are either too high or too low may suggest systemic department shortcomings in QC mechanisms. Due to the lack of standardization, reject data often cannot be easily compared between radiography systems from different vendors. The purpose of this report is to provide guidance to help standardize data elements that are required for comprehensive reject analysis and to propose data reporting and workflows to enable an effective and comprehensive reject rate monitoring program. Essential data elements, a proposed schema for classifying reject reasons, and workflow implementation options are recommended in this task group report. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-03-30 /pmc/articles/PMC10161059/ /pubmed/36995917 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13938 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | AAPM Reports & Documents Little, Kevin Reiser, Ingrid Apgar, Bruce Dalal, Poonam Dave, Jaydev Fisher, Ryan Hulme, Katie Jafari, Mary Ellen Marshall, Emily Meyer, Stephen Moore, Quentin Murphy, Nicole Nishino, Thomas Nye, Katelyn O'Donnell, Kevin Sabol, John Sanchez, Adrian Sensakovic, William Tarbox, Lawrence Uzenoff, Robert Walz‐Flannigan, Alisa Willis, Charles Zhang, Jie AAPM task group report 305: Guidance for standardization of vendor‐neutral reject analysis in radiography |
title | AAPM task group report 305: Guidance for standardization of vendor‐neutral reject analysis in radiography |
title_full | AAPM task group report 305: Guidance for standardization of vendor‐neutral reject analysis in radiography |
title_fullStr | AAPM task group report 305: Guidance for standardization of vendor‐neutral reject analysis in radiography |
title_full_unstemmed | AAPM task group report 305: Guidance for standardization of vendor‐neutral reject analysis in radiography |
title_short | AAPM task group report 305: Guidance for standardization of vendor‐neutral reject analysis in radiography |
title_sort | aapm task group report 305: guidance for standardization of vendor‐neutral reject analysis in radiography |
topic | AAPM Reports & Documents |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10161059/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36995917 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13938 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT littlekevin aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT reiseringrid aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT apgarbruce aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT dalalpoonam aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT davejaydev aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT fisherryan aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT hulmekatie aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT jafarimaryellen aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT marshallemily aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT meyerstephen aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT moorequentin aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT murphynicole aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT nishinothomas aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT nyekatelyn aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT odonnellkevin aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT saboljohn aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT sanchezadrian aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT sensakovicwilliam aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT tarboxlawrence aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT uzenoffrobert aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT walzflanniganalisa aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT willischarles aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography AT zhangjie aapmtaskgroupreport305guidanceforstandardizationofvendorneutralrejectanalysisinradiography |