ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2025
Multi-centric clinical implementation of the remote and automated quality control programme for digital imaging in Malaysia: challenges and pitfalls.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2025. 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.
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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has developed a methodology for a remote and automated quality control (QC) programme for digital radiography (DR) units. The purpose of this paper is to report the results of the implementation of the methodology in four hospitals in Malaysia. The IAEA methodology provides multiple image quality metrics by using dedicated software and standard, easily available materials to construct phantoms at a reasonably low cost. Nine QC phantoms were constructed and distributed across these institutions, with data collected daily or weekly analysed using the Python implementation of the Automated Tool for Image Analysis software. Image quality metrics, including signal-difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR), signal-noise ratio (SNR), modulation transfer function (MTF) and detectability index (d') were assessed on 11 digital radiography units from four different manufacturers. The use of diverse imaging protocols resulted in statistically significant differences in all the image quality metrics across the different units. For the processed image protocols, the median SDNR values ranged (12.2-17.5) and (9.1-17.9), respectively and were less affected by the protocol variations compared to SNR values. The d' 0.3 mm ranged (4.8-7.1) and (3.4-6.2), while the d' 4 mm variation ranged (73-115) and (83-130), respectively. The MTF values were strongly correlated between the horizontal and vertical MTFs, as well as between the MTF levels at 10%, 20% and 50%. Across different DR units, there were significant differences in the image quality metrics, mainly due to the different acquisition protocols employed. Clinical protocols have inherent image post-processing that can significantly alter the image quality metrics values compared to the raw image. The IAEA methodology is a useful tool to track the performance of DR units over time. Recommendations for the wider implementation of this methodology would include standardising the acquisition protocol by means of setting a specific QC protocol template to ensure consistency in the image acquisition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40676471What 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.