数字放射摄影和计算机断层扫描中的剔除分析:比利时影像部门案例研究

IF 2 4区 医学 Q4 Medicine Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology Pub Date : 2023-12-22 DOI:10.5334/jbsr.3259
Laura Haddad, Hanna Saleme, Nigel Howarth, Denis Tack
{"title":"数字放射摄影和计算机断层扫描中的剔除分析:比利时影像部门案例研究","authors":"Laura Haddad, Hanna Saleme, Nigel Howarth, Denis Tack","doi":"10.5334/jbsr.3259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Reject analysis is usually performed in digital radiography (DR) for quality assurance. Data for computed tomography (CT) rejects remains sparse. The aim of this study is to help provide a straightforward benchmark for reject analysis of both DR and CT. Materials and methods: This retrospective observational study included 107,277 DR and 20,659 CT during 18 months in a tertiary care center. Rejected acquisitions were retrieved by Dose Archiving and Communication System (DACS). The DR and CT reject analysis included reject rates, reasons for rejection and supplementary radiation dose associated with these rejects. Results: 8,904 rejected DR and 514 rejected CT were retrieved. The DR reject rate was 8.3% whereas the CT reject rate was 2.5%. The cumulative effective dose (ED) of DR rejects was 377.3 mSv while the cumulative ED of CT rejects was 1267.4 mSv. The major reason for rejects was positioning for both DR (61%) and CT (44%). Conclusion: This study helps constitute a simple reproducible method to analyze both DR and CT rejects simultaneously. Although CT rejects are less often monitored than DR rejects, the radiation dose associated with CT rejects is much higher, which emphasizes the need to systematically monitor both DR and CT rejects. Investigating the reasons and the most frequently rejected examinations gives an opportunity for improvement of imaging techniques in cooperation with technologists.","PeriodicalId":56282,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology","volume":"46 22","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reject Analysis in Digital Radiography and Computed Tomography: A Belgian Imaging Department Case Study\",\"authors\":\"Laura Haddad, Hanna Saleme, Nigel Howarth, Denis Tack\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/jbsr.3259\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: Reject analysis is usually performed in digital radiography (DR) for quality assurance. Data for computed tomography (CT) rejects remains sparse. The aim of this study is to help provide a straightforward benchmark for reject analysis of both DR and CT. Materials and methods: This retrospective observational study included 107,277 DR and 20,659 CT during 18 months in a tertiary care center. Rejected acquisitions were retrieved by Dose Archiving and Communication System (DACS). The DR and CT reject analysis included reject rates, reasons for rejection and supplementary radiation dose associated with these rejects. Results: 8,904 rejected DR and 514 rejected CT were retrieved. The DR reject rate was 8.3% whereas the CT reject rate was 2.5%. The cumulative effective dose (ED) of DR rejects was 377.3 mSv while the cumulative ED of CT rejects was 1267.4 mSv. The major reason for rejects was positioning for both DR (61%) and CT (44%). Conclusion: This study helps constitute a simple reproducible method to analyze both DR and CT rejects simultaneously. Although CT rejects are less often monitored than DR rejects, the radiation dose associated with CT rejects is much higher, which emphasizes the need to systematically monitor both DR and CT rejects. Investigating the reasons and the most frequently rejected examinations gives an opportunity for improvement of imaging techniques in cooperation with technologists.\",\"PeriodicalId\":56282,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology\",\"volume\":\"46 22\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/jbsr.3259\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/jbsr.3259","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:剔除分析通常在数字放射摄影(DR)中进行,以保证质量。计算机断层扫描(CT)剔除的数据仍然很少。本研究旨在为 DR 和 CT 的剔除分析提供一个简单明了的基准。材料和方法:这项回顾性观察研究包括一家三级医疗中心 18 个月内的 107,277 例 DR 和 20,659 例 CT。通过剂量存档和通信系统(DACS)检索了拒收数据。DR 和 CT 剔除分析包括剔除率、剔除原因以及与这些剔除相关的补充辐射剂量。结果:共检索到 8904 份拒收的 DR 和 514 份拒收的 CT。DR 拒收率为 8.3%,而 CT 拒收率为 2.5%。DR剔除的累积有效剂量(ED)为377.3 mSv,CT剔除的累积有效剂量(ED)为1267.4 mSv。DR(61%)和 CT(44%)被拒的主要原因都是定位。结论:这项研究有助于建立一种可同时分析 DR 和 CT 排斥的简单、可重复的方法。虽然 CT 排异的监测频率低于 DR 排异,但与 CT 排异相关的辐射剂量要高得多,这就强调了系统监测 DR 和 CT 排异的必要性。调查被拒检查的原因和最常被拒检查的项目,为与技术人员合作改进成像技术提供了机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reject Analysis in Digital Radiography and Computed Tomography: A Belgian Imaging Department Case Study
Objective: Reject analysis is usually performed in digital radiography (DR) for quality assurance. Data for computed tomography (CT) rejects remains sparse. The aim of this study is to help provide a straightforward benchmark for reject analysis of both DR and CT. Materials and methods: This retrospective observational study included 107,277 DR and 20,659 CT during 18 months in a tertiary care center. Rejected acquisitions were retrieved by Dose Archiving and Communication System (DACS). The DR and CT reject analysis included reject rates, reasons for rejection and supplementary radiation dose associated with these rejects. Results: 8,904 rejected DR and 514 rejected CT were retrieved. The DR reject rate was 8.3% whereas the CT reject rate was 2.5%. The cumulative effective dose (ED) of DR rejects was 377.3 mSv while the cumulative ED of CT rejects was 1267.4 mSv. The major reason for rejects was positioning for both DR (61%) and CT (44%). Conclusion: This study helps constitute a simple reproducible method to analyze both DR and CT rejects simultaneously. Although CT rejects are less often monitored than DR rejects, the radiation dose associated with CT rejects is much higher, which emphasizes the need to systematically monitor both DR and CT rejects. Investigating the reasons and the most frequently rejected examinations gives an opportunity for improvement of imaging techniques in cooperation with technologists.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology
Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The purpose of the Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology is the publication of articles dealing with diagnostic and interventional radiology, related imaging techniques, allied sciences, and continuing education.
期刊最新文献
Invisible Active Bleeding Due to the Watershed Phenomenon Low Consciousness in a Patient with Pancolitis Myositis Ossificans: A Mimicker of an Intramuscular Tumour Xanthogranulomatous and Emphysematous Pyelonephritis: Two Rare Entities Occurring in One Kidney A Rare Presentation of Polypoid Endometriosis of the Douglas Pouch: Case Report
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1