Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36995917›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023

AAPM task group report 305: Guidance for standardization of vendor-neutral reject analysis in radiography.

Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser, Bruce Apgar, Poonam Dalal, Jaydev Dave, Ryan Fisher, Katie Hulme, Mary Ellen Jafari, Emily Marshall, Stephen Meyer and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

Kevin LittleOhio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7241-0012
Ingrid ReiserThe University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Bruce ApgarAGFA HealthCare, Greenville, South Carolina, USA.
Poonam DalalGE Healthcare, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Jaydev DaveThomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Ryan FisherThe MetroHealth System, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Katie HulmeCleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Mary Ellen JafariAtlantic Health System, Morristown, New Jersey, USA.
Emily MarshallThe University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7995-0671
Stephen MeyerCanon Medical Components USA, Irvine, California, USA.
Quentin MooreMercy College of Ohio, Toledo, Ohio, USA.
Nicole MurphyAnn & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Thomas NishinoUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3907-822X
Katelyn NyeGE Healthcare, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Kevin O'DonnellCanon Medical Research USA, Vernon Hills, Illinois, USA.
John SabolGE Healthcare, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Adrian SanchezVanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
William SensakovicMayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Lawrence TarboxUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA.
Robert UzenoffFujifilm Medical Systems USA, Lexington, Massachusetts, USA.
Alisa Walz-FlanniganMarshfield Clinic, Marshfield, Wisconsin, USA.
Charles WillisCanon Medical Research USA, Vernon Hills, Illinois, USA.
Jie ZhangUniversity of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

RadiographyHumansQuality ControlReference StandardsComputed radiographydigital radiographyradiographyrejectreject ratereject rate analysisrepeat

Identifiers

PMID36995917
PMCPMC10161059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.