ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2026
Image Reject Patterns in Computed Radiography: Insights From a Ghanaian Radiology Department.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionImage reject analysis is a critical quality assurance (QA) tool in diagnostic imaging, helping to minimise unnecessary radiation exposure and improve imaging efficiency. This study evaluates image rejection patterns in a computed radiography (CR) system at a major tertiary teaching hospital in Ghana, identifying key sources of errors and their implications for radiology practice.
methodsA retrospective review of radiographic images acquired between April and June 2023 was conducted. Images, including those flagged as rejects were retrieved from the CR system and analysed for rejection rates, trends by anatomical region, and key error sources.
resultsOf the 5889 images reviewed, 974 were rejected, resulting in an overall rejection rate of 16.5%. Rejection rates varied considerably across anatomical regions. High rejection rates were observed in skull/sinus (34.9%, n = 90/258), pelvic (29.9%, n = 88/294) and abdomen (26.9%, n = 84/312) examinations. Low rejects were recorded for ankle (1.8%, n = 2/110), humerus (2.4%, n = 2/82), forearm (6.7%, n = 6/90), elbow (9.7%, n = 6/62), and lower leg (7.5%, n = 16/214). Across all examinations, the three leading causes of image rejection were anatomical cut-off (40.5%, n = 394), positioning errors (27.5%, n = 268), and beam centering errors (18.5%, n = 180). Less frequent causes included exposure-related issues (6.6%, n = 64), patient movement (2.9%, n = 28), and artefacts or ghosting (4.1%, n = 40).
conclusionThis study reinforces the role of image reject analysis as a valuable QA measure in CR systems. The high rejection rates observed highlight the need for targeted interventions in positioning, workflow optimization, and radiographer training, particularly in resource-constrained settings to enhance diagnostic quality and patient safety.
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.