↓ 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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
203 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 <1%
Unknown 202 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 34 17%
Student > Master 26 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Researcher 16 8%
Other 15 7%
Other 24 12%
Unknown 70 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 40 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 12%
Engineering 11 5%
Arts and Humanities 3 1%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 77 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 24 March 2020.
All research outputs
#2,182,290
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#138
of 7,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,863
of 285,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#5
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,792 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
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 285,600 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.