Cargando…
Image rejects in general direct digital radiography
BACKGROUND: The number of rejected images is an indicator of image quality and unnecessary imaging at a radiology department. Image reject analysis was frequent in the film era, but comparably few and small studies have been published after converting to digital radiography. One reason may be a beli...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4601124/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26500784 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2058460115604339 |
_version_ | 1782394514557632512 |
---|---|
author | Hofmann, Bjørn Rosanowsky, Tine Blomberg Jensen, Camilla Wah, Kenneth Hong Ching |
author_facet | Hofmann, Bjørn Rosanowsky, Tine Blomberg Jensen, Camilla Wah, Kenneth Hong Ching |
author_sort | Hofmann, Bjørn |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The number of rejected images is an indicator of image quality and unnecessary imaging at a radiology department. Image reject analysis was frequent in the film era, but comparably few and small studies have been published after converting to digital radiography. One reason may be a belief that rejects have been eliminated with digitalization. PURPOSE: To measure the extension of deleted images in direct digital radiography (DR), in order to assess the rates of rejects and unnecessary imaging and to analyze reasons for deletions, in order to improve the radiological services. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All exposed images at two direct digital laboratories at a hospital in Norway were reviewed in January 2014. Type of examination, number of exposed images, and number of deleted images were registered. Each deleted image was analyzed separately and the reason for deleting the image was recorded. RESULTS: Out of 5417 exposed images, 596 were deleted, giving a deletion rate of 11%. A total of 51.3% were deleted due to positioning errors and 31.0% due to error in centering. The examinations with the highest percentage of deleted images were the knee, hip, and ankle, 20.6%, 18.5%, and 13.8% respectively. CONCLUSION: The reject rate is at least as high as the deletion rate and is comparable with previous film-based imaging systems. The reasons for rejection are quite different in digital systems. This falsifies the hypothesis that digitalization would eliminates rejects. A deleted image does not contribute to diagnostics, and therefore is an unnecessary image. Hence, the high rates of deleted images have implications for management, training, education, as well as for quality. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4601124 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46011242015-10-23 Image rejects in general direct digital radiography Hofmann, Bjørn Rosanowsky, Tine Blomberg Jensen, Camilla Wah, Kenneth Hong Ching Acta Radiol Open Research BACKGROUND: The number of rejected images is an indicator of image quality and unnecessary imaging at a radiology department. Image reject analysis was frequent in the film era, but comparably few and small studies have been published after converting to digital radiography. One reason may be a belief that rejects have been eliminated with digitalization. PURPOSE: To measure the extension of deleted images in direct digital radiography (DR), in order to assess the rates of rejects and unnecessary imaging and to analyze reasons for deletions, in order to improve the radiological services. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All exposed images at two direct digital laboratories at a hospital in Norway were reviewed in January 2014. Type of examination, number of exposed images, and number of deleted images were registered. Each deleted image was analyzed separately and the reason for deleting the image was recorded. RESULTS: Out of 5417 exposed images, 596 were deleted, giving a deletion rate of 11%. A total of 51.3% were deleted due to positioning errors and 31.0% due to error in centering. The examinations with the highest percentage of deleted images were the knee, hip, and ankle, 20.6%, 18.5%, and 13.8% respectively. CONCLUSION: The reject rate is at least as high as the deletion rate and is comparable with previous film-based imaging systems. The reasons for rejection are quite different in digital systems. This falsifies the hypothesis that digitalization would eliminates rejects. A deleted image does not contribute to diagnostics, and therefore is an unnecessary image. Hence, the high rates of deleted images have implications for management, training, education, as well as for quality. SAGE Publications 2015-10-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4601124/ /pubmed/26500784 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2058460115604339 Text en © The Foundation Acta Radiologica 2015 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Research Hofmann, Bjørn Rosanowsky, Tine Blomberg Jensen, Camilla Wah, Kenneth Hong Ching Image rejects in general direct digital radiography |
title | Image rejects in general direct digital radiography |
title_full | Image rejects in general direct digital radiography |
title_fullStr | Image rejects in general direct digital radiography |
title_full_unstemmed | Image rejects in general direct digital radiography |
title_short | Image rejects in general direct digital radiography |
title_sort | image rejects in general direct digital radiography |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4601124/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26500784 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2058460115604339 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hofmannbjørn imagerejectsingeneraldirectdigitalradiography AT rosanowskytineblomberg imagerejectsingeneraldirectdigitalradiography AT jensencamilla imagerejectsingeneraldirectdigitalradiography AT wahkennethhongching imagerejectsingeneraldirectdigitalradiography |