AAPM task group report 305: Guidance for standardization of vendor-neutral reject analysis in radiography

Kevin Little; Ingrid Reiser; Bruce Apgar; Poonam Dalal; Jaydev Dave; Ryan Fisher; Katie Hulme; Mary Ellen Jafari; Emily Marshall; Stephen Meyer; Quentin Moore; Nicole Murphy; Thomas Nishino; Katelyn Nye; Kevin O'Donnell; John Sabol; Adrian Sanchez; William Sensakovic; Lawrence Tarbox; Robert Uzenoff; Alisa Walz-Flannigan; Charles Willis; Jie Zhang

doi:10.1002/acm2.13938

AAPM task group report 305: Guidance for standardization of vendor-neutral reject analysis in radiography

Kevin Little, Ingrid Reiser, Bruce Apgar, Poonam Dalal, Jaydev Dave, Ryan Fisher, Katie Hulme, Mary Ellen Jafari, Emily Marshall, Stephen Meyer, Quentin Moore, Nicole Murphy, Thomas Nishino, Katelyn Nye, Kevin O'Donnell, John Sabol, Adrian Sanchez, William Sensakovic, Lawrence Tarbox, Robert UzenoffAlisa Walz-Flannigan, Charles Willis, Jie Zhang

Imaging Physics

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Reject rate analysis is considered an integral part of a diagnostic radiography quality control (QC) program. A rejected image is a patient radiograph that was not presented to a radiologist for diagnosis and that contributes unnecessary radiation dose to the patient. Reject rates that are either too high or too low may suggest systemic department shortcomings in QC mechanisms. Due to the lack of standardization, reject data often cannot be easily compared between radiography systems from different vendors. The purpose of this report is to provide guidance to help standardize data elements that are required for comprehensive reject analysis and to propose data reporting and workflows to enable an effective and comprehensive reject rate monitoring program. Essential data elements, a proposed schema for classifying reject reasons, and workflow implementation options are recommended in this task group report.

Original language	English (US)
Article number	e13938
Journal	Journal of applied clinical medical physics
Volume	24
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13938
State	Published - May 2023

Keywords

Computed radiography
digital radiography
radiography
reject
reject rate
reject rate analysis
repeat

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Radiation
Instrumentation
Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Access to Document

10.1002/acm2.13938

Cite this

Little, K., Reiser, I., Apgar, B., Dalal, P., Dave, J., Fisher, R., Hulme, K., Jafari, M. E., Marshall, E., Meyer, S., Moore, Q., Murphy, N., Nishino, T., Nye, K., O'Donnell, K., Sabol, J., Sanchez, A., Sensakovic, W., Tarbox, L., ... Zhang, J. (2023). AAPM task group report 305: Guidance for standardization of vendor-neutral reject analysis in radiography. Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 24(5), Article e13938. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13938

Little, K, Reiser, I, Apgar, B, Dalal, P, Dave, J, Fisher, R, Hulme, K, Jafari, ME, Marshall, E, Meyer, S, Moore, Q, Murphy, N, Nishino, T, Nye, K, O'Donnell, K, Sabol, J, Sanchez, A, Sensakovic, W, Tarbox, L, Uzenoff, R, Walz-Flannigan, A, Willis, C & Zhang, J 2023, 'AAPM task group report 305: Guidance for standardization of vendor-neutral reject analysis in radiography', Journal of applied clinical medical physics, vol. 24, no. 5, e13938. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13938

@article{baf1162c9a124397bc86fadbc0547098,

title = "AAPM task group report 305: Guidance for standardization of vendor-neutral reject analysis in radiography",

abstract = "Reject rate analysis is considered an integral part of a diagnostic radiography quality control (QC) program. A rejected image is a patient radiograph that was not presented to a radiologist for diagnosis and that contributes unnecessary radiation dose to the patient. Reject rates that are either too high or too low may suggest systemic department shortcomings in QC mechanisms. Due to the lack of standardization, reject data often cannot be easily compared between radiography systems from different vendors. The purpose of this report is to provide guidance to help standardize data elements that are required for comprehensive reject analysis and to propose data reporting and workflows to enable an effective and comprehensive reject rate monitoring program. Essential data elements, a proposed schema for classifying reject reasons, and workflow implementation options are recommended in this task group report.",

keywords = "Computed radiography, digital radiography, radiography, reject, reject rate, reject rate analysis, repeat",

author = "Kevin Little and Ingrid Reiser and Bruce Apgar and Poonam Dalal and Jaydev Dave and Ryan Fisher and Katie Hulme and Jafari, {Mary Ellen} and Emily Marshall and Stephen Meyer and Quentin Moore and Nicole Murphy and Thomas Nishino and Katelyn Nye and Kevin O'Donnell and John Sabol and Adrian Sanchez and William Sensakovic and Lawrence Tarbox and Robert Uzenoff and Alisa Walz-Flannigan and Charles Willis and Jie Zhang",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.",

year = "2023",

month = may,

doi = "10.1002/acm2.13938",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "24",

journal = "Journal of applied clinical medical physics",

issn = "1526-9914",

publisher = "American Institute of Physics Publising LLC",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - AAPM task group report 305

T2 - Guidance for standardization of vendor-neutral reject analysis in radiography

AU - Little, Kevin

AU - Reiser, Ingrid

AU - Apgar, Bruce

AU - Dalal, Poonam

AU - Dave, Jaydev

AU - Fisher, Ryan

AU - Hulme, Katie

AU - Jafari, Mary Ellen

AU - Marshall, Emily

AU - Meyer, Stephen

AU - Moore, Quentin

AU - Murphy, Nicole

AU - Nishino, Thomas

AU - Nye, Katelyn

AU - O'Donnell, Kevin

AU - Sabol, John

AU - Sanchez, Adrian

AU - Sensakovic, William

AU - Tarbox, Lawrence

AU - Uzenoff, Robert

AU - Walz-Flannigan, Alisa

AU - Willis, Charles

AU - Zhang, Jie

PY - 2023/5

Y1 - 2023/5

N2 - Reject rate analysis is considered an integral part of a diagnostic radiography quality control (QC) program. A rejected image is a patient radiograph that was not presented to a radiologist for diagnosis and that contributes unnecessary radiation dose to the patient. Reject rates that are either too high or too low may suggest systemic department shortcomings in QC mechanisms. Due to the lack of standardization, reject data often cannot be easily compared between radiography systems from different vendors. The purpose of this report is to provide guidance to help standardize data elements that are required for comprehensive reject analysis and to propose data reporting and workflows to enable an effective and comprehensive reject rate monitoring program. Essential data elements, a proposed schema for classifying reject reasons, and workflow implementation options are recommended in this task group report.

AB - Reject rate analysis is considered an integral part of a diagnostic radiography quality control (QC) program. A rejected image is a patient radiograph that was not presented to a radiologist for diagnosis and that contributes unnecessary radiation dose to the patient. Reject rates that are either too high or too low may suggest systemic department shortcomings in QC mechanisms. Due to the lack of standardization, reject data often cannot be easily compared between radiography systems from different vendors. The purpose of this report is to provide guidance to help standardize data elements that are required for comprehensive reject analysis and to propose data reporting and workflows to enable an effective and comprehensive reject rate monitoring program. Essential data elements, a proposed schema for classifying reject reasons, and workflow implementation options are recommended in this task group report.

KW - Computed radiography

KW - digital radiography

KW - radiography

KW - reject

KW - reject rate

KW - reject rate analysis

KW - repeat

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85152089518&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85152089518&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/acm2.13938

DO - 10.1002/acm2.13938

M3 - Article

C2 - 36995917

AN - SCOPUS:85152089518

SN - 1526-9914

VL - 24

JO - Journal of applied clinical medical physics

JF - Journal of applied clinical medical physics

IS - 5

M1 - e13938

ER -

AAPM task group report 305: Guidance for standardization of vendor-neutral reject analysis in radiography

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this