↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

Ongoing quality control in digital radiography: Report of AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 151

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
Title
Ongoing quality control in digital radiography: Report of AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 151
Published in
Medical Physics, October 2015
DOI 10.1118/1.4932623
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Kyle Jones, Philip Heintz, William Geiser, Lee Goldman, Khachig Jerjian, Melissa Martin, Donald Peck, Douglas Pfeiffer, Nicole Ranger, John Yorkston

Abstract

Quality control (QC) in medical imaging is an ongoing process and not just a series of infrequent evaluations of medical imaging equipment. The QC process involves designing and implementing a QC program, collecting and analyzing data, investigating results that are outside the acceptance levels for the QC program, and taking corrective action to bring these results back to an acceptable level. The QC process involves key personnel in the imaging department, including the radiologist, radiologic technologist, and the qualified medical physicist (QMP). The QMP performs detailed equipment evaluations and helps with oversight of the QC program, the radiologic technologist is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the QC program. The continued need for ongoing QC in digital radiography has been highlighted in the scientific literature. The charge of this task group was to recommend consistency tests designed to be performed by a medical physicist or a radiologic technologist under the direction of a medical physicist to identify problems with an imaging system that need further evaluation by a medical physicist, including a fault tree to define actions that need to be taken when certain fault conditions are identified. The focus of this final report is the ongoing QC process, including rejected image analysis, exposure analysis, and artifact identification. These QC tasks are vital for the optimal operation of a department performing digital radiography.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Finland 1 1%
Unknown 84 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 19%
Student > Bachelor 16 19%
Unspecified 14 16%
Other 13 15%
Researcher 9 10%
Other 18 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 22 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 26%
Unspecified 16 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 15%
Engineering 5 6%
Other 8 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2015.
All research outputs
#6,368,367
of 12,362,744 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#2,853
of 5,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,228
of 265,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#31
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,362,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,413 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,281 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.