4年超声质量控制结果的多机构调查。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 ACOUSTICS
Zaiyang Long, Megan Russ, Sandra Larson, Mark R Holland, Zheng-Feng Lu, Cameron Kofler, Wei Zhou, Jian-Feng Chen, Zhimin Li, James Zagzebski, Jennifer Stickel, Andreea Dohatcu
{"title":"4年超声质量控制结果的多机构调查。","authors":"Zaiyang Long, Megan Russ, Sandra Larson, Mark R Holland, Zheng-Feng Lu, Cameron Kofler, Wei Zhou, Jian-Feng Chen, Zhimin Li, James Zagzebski, Jennifer Stickel, Andreea Dohatcu","doi":"10.1002/jum.16763","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Periodic quality control (QC) testing of ultrasound (US) imaging systems is essential to ensure and maintain image quality and safety. The study aims to analyze QC findings from medical physics annual surveys of modern clinical US systems in a multi-institutional survey.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>QC results from annual surveys between 2018 and 2021 were retrospectively collected from 12 medical physicists from 11 institutions or consulting companies (hereafter referred to as sites). QC tests were classified as scanner- and transducer-related tests, where scanner-related tests also included evaluation of diagnostic workstation display monitors and routine QC programs if applicable. Test methodology and pass/fail criteria were established by each site. QC findings were defined as results requiring follow-up action by service engineers, vendors, or other personnel. The percentage of annual findings was calculated for each site and averaged across the years of data contributed. Furthermore, findings across all sites were aggregated for an overall analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>QC data from a total of 1069 scanner tests and 4542 transducer tests were collected. The average annual percentage of scanner-related findings varied from 0 to 40.8% among all sites (first quartile 8.7%, median 18.2%, and third quartile 34.1%), while that of transducer-related findings ranged between 0.5% and 19.9% (first quartile 3.9%, median 7.2%, and third quartile 14.5%). For scanner-related tests, the top 3 categories of findings were associated with physical and mechanical integrity (171 findings, 74.7%), quantitative testing of the scanner display monitor (40 findings, 17.5%), and scanner port creating artifacts (10 findings, 4.4%). The top 3 findings for transducers related to uniformity and artifact (227 findings, 79.9%), physical and mechanical integrity (44 findings, 15.5%), and sensitivity in fundamental mode (9 findings, 3.2%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Medical physics annual surveys revealed considerable actionable findings of modern US systems, which inform the status of current US QC practices in the United States and may guide future standardization and recommendation of QC tests.</p>","PeriodicalId":17563,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multi-Institutional Survey of 4-Year Ultrasound Quality Control Findings.\",\"authors\":\"Zaiyang Long, Megan Russ, Sandra Larson, Mark R Holland, Zheng-Feng Lu, Cameron Kofler, Wei Zhou, Jian-Feng Chen, Zhimin Li, James Zagzebski, Jennifer Stickel, Andreea Dohatcu\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jum.16763\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Periodic quality control (QC) testing of ultrasound (US) imaging systems is essential to ensure and maintain image quality and safety. The study aims to analyze QC findings from medical physics annual surveys of modern clinical US systems in a multi-institutional survey.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>QC results from annual surveys between 2018 and 2021 were retrospectively collected from 12 medical physicists from 11 institutions or consulting companies (hereafter referred to as sites). QC tests were classified as scanner- and transducer-related tests, where scanner-related tests also included evaluation of diagnostic workstation display monitors and routine QC programs if applicable. Test methodology and pass/fail criteria were established by each site. QC findings were defined as results requiring follow-up action by service engineers, vendors, or other personnel. The percentage of annual findings was calculated for each site and averaged across the years of data contributed. Furthermore, findings across all sites were aggregated for an overall analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>QC data from a total of 1069 scanner tests and 4542 transducer tests were collected. The average annual percentage of scanner-related findings varied from 0 to 40.8% among all sites (first quartile 8.7%, median 18.2%, and third quartile 34.1%), while that of transducer-related findings ranged between 0.5% and 19.9% (first quartile 3.9%, median 7.2%, and third quartile 14.5%). For scanner-related tests, the top 3 categories of findings were associated with physical and mechanical integrity (171 findings, 74.7%), quantitative testing of the scanner display monitor (40 findings, 17.5%), and scanner port creating artifacts (10 findings, 4.4%). The top 3 findings for transducers related to uniformity and artifact (227 findings, 79.9%), physical and mechanical integrity (44 findings, 15.5%), and sensitivity in fundamental mode (9 findings, 3.2%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Medical physics annual surveys revealed considerable actionable findings of modern US systems, which inform the status of current US QC practices in the United States and may guide future standardization and recommendation of QC tests.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17563,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.16763\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ACOUSTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.16763","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ACOUSTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:超声成像系统的定期质量控制(QC)检测对于确保和维持图像质量和安全至关重要。该研究的目的是在一个多机构调查中分析医学物理学对现代临床美国系统的年度调查的质量控制结果。方法:回顾性收集来自11个机构或咨询公司(以下简称机构)的12名医学物理学家2018 - 2021年年度调查的QC结果。QC测试分为与扫描仪和传感器相关的测试,其中与扫描仪相关的测试还包括诊断工作站显示器和常规QC程序的评估(如果适用)。测试方法和合格/不合格标准由每个站点建立。质量控制发现被定义为需要服务工程师、供应商或其他人员采取后续行动的结果。计算了每个地点的年度调查结果的百分比,并在提供数据的年份中取平均值。此外,对所有站点的调查结果进行了汇总,以进行总体分析。结果:共收集了1069次扫描仪测试和4542次换能器测试的QC数据。在所有地点中,扫描仪相关发现的年平均百分比从0到40.8%不等(第一四分位数为8.7%,中位数为18.2%,第三四分位数为34.1%),而传感器相关发现的年平均百分比在0.5%到19.9%之间(第一四分位数为3.9%,中位数为7.2%,第三四分位数为14.5%)。对于扫描仪相关的测试,前三类发现与物理和机械完整性(171个发现,74.7%)、扫描仪显示显示器的定量测试(40个发现,17.5%)和扫描仪端口创建伪影(10个发现,4.4%)相关。换能器的前3个发现与均匀性和伪像(227个发现,79.9%)、物理和机械完整性(44个发现,15.5%)和基本模式的灵敏度(9个发现,3.2%)有关。结论:医学物理年度调查揭示了现代美国系统中相当多的可操作的发现,这些发现告知了美国目前质量控制实践的现状,并可能指导未来质量控制测试的标准化和推荐。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Multi-Institutional Survey of 4-Year Ultrasound Quality Control Findings.

Objectives: Periodic quality control (QC) testing of ultrasound (US) imaging systems is essential to ensure and maintain image quality and safety. The study aims to analyze QC findings from medical physics annual surveys of modern clinical US systems in a multi-institutional survey.

Methods: QC results from annual surveys between 2018 and 2021 were retrospectively collected from 12 medical physicists from 11 institutions or consulting companies (hereafter referred to as sites). QC tests were classified as scanner- and transducer-related tests, where scanner-related tests also included evaluation of diagnostic workstation display monitors and routine QC programs if applicable. Test methodology and pass/fail criteria were established by each site. QC findings were defined as results requiring follow-up action by service engineers, vendors, or other personnel. The percentage of annual findings was calculated for each site and averaged across the years of data contributed. Furthermore, findings across all sites were aggregated for an overall analysis.

Results: QC data from a total of 1069 scanner tests and 4542 transducer tests were collected. The average annual percentage of scanner-related findings varied from 0 to 40.8% among all sites (first quartile 8.7%, median 18.2%, and third quartile 34.1%), while that of transducer-related findings ranged between 0.5% and 19.9% (first quartile 3.9%, median 7.2%, and third quartile 14.5%). For scanner-related tests, the top 3 categories of findings were associated with physical and mechanical integrity (171 findings, 74.7%), quantitative testing of the scanner display monitor (40 findings, 17.5%), and scanner port creating artifacts (10 findings, 4.4%). The top 3 findings for transducers related to uniformity and artifact (227 findings, 79.9%), physical and mechanical integrity (44 findings, 15.5%), and sensitivity in fundamental mode (9 findings, 3.2%).

Conclusions: Medical physics annual surveys revealed considerable actionable findings of modern US systems, which inform the status of current US QC practices in the United States and may guide future standardization and recommendation of QC tests.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
205
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine (JUM) is dedicated to the rapid, accurate publication of original articles dealing with all aspects of medical ultrasound, particularly its direct application to patient care but also relevant basic science, advances in instrumentation, and biological effects. The journal is an official publication of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and publishes articles in a variety of categories, including Original Research papers, Review Articles, Pictorial Essays, Technical Innovations, Case Series, Letters to the Editor, and more, from an international bevy of countries in a continual effort to showcase and promote advances in the ultrasound community. Represented through these efforts are a wide variety of disciplines of ultrasound, including, but not limited to: -Basic Science- Breast Ultrasound- Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound- Dermatology- Echocardiography- Elastography- Emergency Medicine- Fetal Echocardiography- Gastrointestinal Ultrasound- General and Abdominal Ultrasound- Genitourinary Ultrasound- Gynecologic Ultrasound- Head and Neck Ultrasound- High Frequency Clinical and Preclinical Imaging- Interventional-Intraoperative Ultrasound- Musculoskeletal Ultrasound- Neurosonology- Obstetric Ultrasound- Ophthalmologic Ultrasound- Pediatric Ultrasound- Point-of-Care Ultrasound- Public Policy- Superficial Structures- Therapeutic Ultrasound- Ultrasound Education- Ultrasound in Global Health- Urologic Ultrasound- Vascular Ultrasound
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信