ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2020
Improvement in MR quality control workflow and outcomes with a web-based database.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo describe a custom-built, web-based MR Quality Control (QC) database, and to assess its impact on the QC workflow and outcomes in a large U.S. academic medical center.
methodsThe MR QC database was built with Microsoft Access 2010 and published on a Microsoft Sharepoint website owned and maintained by the authors' institution. Authorized users can access the database remotely with mainstream web browsers on any institutional computers. QC technologists were granted access to add, review, and print daily and weekly QC records. Qualified medical physicists (QMPs) were granted additional access to edit, review, and approve existing QC records and to change tolerance limits. A macro was utilized to conduct an automatic weekly review of QC status and to email the results to a QMP. This web-based QC database was implemented on 17 clinical MRIs at the authors' institution. Weekly ACR QC findings within one year before and after implementation were compared.
resultsWe analyzed 158 QC issues detected by the web-based database and 127 QC issues identified in conventional paper records before we implemented the database. The web-based database significantly reduced the number of QC issues due to technologist error (before/after: 59/24 cases, P < 0.0001) but did not affect the number of QC issues related to scanner performance (before/after: 49/46 cases, P = 1). Further analysis revealed that the web-based database significantly reduced the average time for the QMPs to identify a QC issue (before/after: 177 ± 110/2 ± 2 days, P < 0.0001) and time to correction (before/after: 81 ± 102/7 ± 8 days, P < 0.0001). The correction rate also significantly increased (before/after: 22%/99%, P < 0.0001).
conclusionThe web-based QC database provides a positive impact on our MR QC workflow and outcomes. It simplifies QC workflow, enables early detection of quality issues, and facilitates quick resolution of problems that may affect the quality of clinical MRI studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.