Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42661040›Full record

ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2026

ACPSEM guideline: recommendations for a fluoroscopic system quality assurance program.

Mohamed K Badawy, Zoe Brady, Amanda A Perdomo, Benjamin Keir, Kam L Lee, Giles Wynn-Williams, Peter Barnes

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Mohamed K BadawyMonash Health Radiology, Monash Health, 246 Clayton Rd, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia. mohamed.badawy@monashhealth.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8029-9951
Zoe BradyDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9991-757X
Amanda A PerdomoDepartment of Medical Imaging, The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2809-1886
Benjamin KeirBiomedical Technology Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-5532-4199
Kam L LeeAustralian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Medical Imaging Section, Yallambie, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3660-9005
Giles Wynn-WilliamsDunedin Hospital Radiology, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-6880-3637
Peter BarnesMedical Physics Department, Austin Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fluoroscopic systems are increasingly used for complex image-guided procedures across medical disciplines in Australia and New Zealand. The associated radiation exposure risks to patients and staff necessitate robust quality assurance (QA) programs. However, no national guidance has previously existed for a standardised fluoroscopy QA program in the Australia and New Zealand context. To provide evidence-informed recommendations for the quality assurance of fluoroscopic systems in Australia and New Zealand, addressing the absence of national standards and supporting consistent, high-quality clinical practice. This guideline was developed by the ACPSEM Fluoroscopy QA Working Group, established in February 2019 by the ACPSEM Radiology Specialty Group. Recommendations were informed by an expert-driven review of international standards and protocols, including those from the AAPM, IAEA, EFOMP, and IEC, adapted for Australia and New Zealand practice through working-group discussions and reviews. The draft guideline underwent stakeholder consultation, including circulation to ACPSEM members and relevant professional organisations. The guideline outlines recommended QA tests for medical physicists at acceptance, commissioning, and periodic intervals, along with routine quality control procedures for radiographers. Key areas include radiation dose output assessment, automatic dose rate control verification, image quality evaluation, personal protective equipment integrity testing, and clinical dose audits. A quality review meeting framework is also provided. This guideline establishes a nationally consistent framework for fluoroscopy QA that complements local regulatory requirements. Its adoption will support patient safety, staff radiation protection, and optimal equipment performance across healthcare facilities in Australia and New Zealand.

Indexed as

ACPSEMC-armDigital imagingFluoroscopyQuality assuranceQuality control

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.